[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11501-S11519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DISAPPROVING FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BROADCAST MEDIA 
                             OWNERSHIP RULE

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume the consideration of S.J. Res. 17, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 17) disapproving the rules 
     submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with 
     respect to broadcast media ownership.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until 10:45 is equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  Before yielding, let me just briefly say, this resolution of 
disapproval dealing with the rules on broadcast ownership by the 
Federal Communications Commission is a rarely used----
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is the Senator from North Dakota granting 
himself time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is 30 minutes granted to each side, 
as I understand it.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until 10:45 is equally divided.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me grant myself such time as I may 
consume. Then I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. I was simply making the point that this is a resolution 
of disapproval. It is rarely used in the Senate. I think this is only 
the second time it has been used. But this is a critically important 
issue. We will have a number of speakers describing why this resolution 
of disapproval has been brought to the floor of the Senate.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S11502]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for the 
resolution that would disapprove the FCC ruling of June 2. In 1996, we 
passed the Telecommunications Act which said Congress should work 
toward deregulating the media. We charged the FCC with ensuring the 
protection of competition, diversity, and localism.
  I think the rule that came out does the opposite. It does not protect 
the localism and the diversity, particularly in the newspaper and 
television markets. We must turn back the entire rule, even if we agree 
with part of it, in order to tell the FCC to go back and start again.

  I think the FCC could come up with another rule which would have some 
of the components of its June 2 rule, along with taking out parts that 
many of us believe actually will hurt localism.
  There are 100 Senators in this body. Probably each one has a 
different view of what would be best in the media. Overall, I think it 
is important for us to be more cautious rather than less cautious, 
because what can happen if you lower the number of voices in the media, 
and companies make investments based on the rules at the time, is 
later, down the road, if you determine that, in fact, we have lowered 
the number of voices in the media--and it is to the detriment of the 
consuming public--then I don't think you should penalize the companies 
that made decisions based on the rules at the time.
  I think stability in regulations is a good business principle. I 
think if you look at the particular part of the rule that deals with 
newspaper/television cross-ownership, you have the worst part of the 
decision and the one that concerns me the most. And we have examples 
because three companies were grandfathered when the rules were made on 
cross-ownership. So we have seen what can happen in a local market when 
a company is allowed to own the only newspaper in town plus the major 
television station in town, and then perhaps even radio.
  I believe radio is pretty diversified. I do not think we have a 
problem with the number of voices in radio. My concern is ownership of 
the only newspaper in a market plus a major television station in the 
market. And we have examples of that.
  In Dallas, we have one company that owns the only newspaper in town 
plus the largest ABC television affiliate, which has the largest market 
share of viewers for all editions of the news.
  In Atlanta, we have one company that has the only newspaper in town 
that is a regular newspaper. It also owns the major television station 
in town, one of the Nation's top performing ABC affiliates, and it also 
happens to own 25 percent of the radio market. So I think that is a 
pretty alarming amount of concentration.
  Maybe they do a good job. But what we are talking about is not 
Atlanta. We are not talking about Dallas. They do good jobs in many 
respects. What we are talking about is other cities and allowing this 
kind of concentration to pop up all over the country--the only 
newspaper in town plus the major television station.
  In the FCC's own poll, it showed that 74 percent of the people in a 
community get their local news from a combination of television and 
newspaper--74 percent. If you have one company owning the newspaper and 
the major television station, you have a concentration that could be 
unhealthy. If it is unhealthy, it will be too late to go back and 
retrofit because these companies will make these investments based on 
the rules of the time.
  We should proceed with caution. I think we should overturn this rule, 
ask the FCC to go back to the drawing board and take more testimony. 
They had one hearing--one hearing--before they came out with this rule. 
Two of the members of the Commission were so concerned that they went 
out across the country and had hearings of their own. But even though 
there was a lot of testimony, it does not appear that the FCC took that 
testimony into account when they made this rule of June 2. In fact, 
those two members voted the other way.
  They had heard the people speak, and they were concerned about this 
kind of concentration.
  So whether you agree in part with the FCC or not at all, I hope you 
will support the turning back of the rule so that we will give the FCC 
a chance to go back to the drawing board, hear what Congress says, 
hopefully hear more from the public, and come out with rules 
particularly in the area of newspaper/television cross-ownership that I 
think should continue the ban.
  Congress passed the law in 1996, giving the responsibility to the 
FCC. Some people say: Well, why is Congress getting involved? Well, it 
is Congress's responsibility to get involved with regulators when the 
regulators do not implement the law that Congress passed when they were 
given the responsibility to do just that. It would be an abdication of 
our responsibility if a majority of Congress disagreed with part of the 
ruling that we would not take control of the decision. We are the 
elected representatives. The FCC is an appointed body to which we have 
delegated responsibility to make rules. If we do not agree with the 
entire rule, it is our responsibility to act, and that is why the 
Congressional Review Act was passed.
  I want to talk for a minute about what this is not. I was amazed, 
because I think very highly of the Wall Street Journal in most 
respects--in almost every respect--but they had an editorial last 
Friday that said if we turn back the rule on cross-ownership of 
newspapers and television, somehow this is going to bring back a review 
of the fairness doctrine.
  I do not support the fairness doctrine. I think radio is quite 
diversified. I think the voices that are coming into radio are very 
healthy. I think talk radio has given voice to the silent majority. The 
last thing this has anything to do with is the fairness doctrine, and 
yet my friend Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal somehow tied 
the fairness doctrine to a newspaper/television cross-ownership issue.
  Letting one entity own the only newspaper in town and the major 
television station in town is lowering the number of voices in the 
media, not increasing the number. So while some people are more 
concerned about the 35 to 45 percent, I am focused on the newspaper/
television ownership that I think affects our country.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will close by saying that when we are talking about 
lowering the number of voices in the media, we should proceed with 
caution. Voting for this resolution of review says to the FCC: You went 
too far in some respects--not every respect. We may disagree on the 
areas, but you need to listen more to Congress and to the people who 
have spoken.
  I hope people will vote yes, and I hope the FCC will be responsive.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator speaking for or against?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am speaking for.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think appropriately at this point, 
Senator McCain in opposition will yield time and then I will be happy 
to yield time to the Senator from Wisconsin at an appropriate time.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time does the Senator from Louisiana wish?
  Mr. BREAUX. A couple minutes--3 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.
  Mr. President, I will just make a couple of comments in opposition to 
the resolution because I think the resolution is sort of a broad-brush 
approach that takes down everything the FCC has recommended, things 
that make sense that are good and also things about which some people 
may have questions. It really is a resolution that assumes, in my 
opinion, that if things are small, they are necessarily good; if things 
are big, they are necessarily bad.
  I think particularly as this is clearly spelled out with regard to 
part of the FCC's rule that deals with the question of television 
ownership, the rule from the FCC basically allowed the television 
stations to move up to a 45-percent-of-viewer cap before they would be

[[Page S11503]]

prohibited from owning additional television stations.
  It seems to me that if you look at media concentration now, you have 
1,721 television stations in the United States and the networks only 
own a very small percentage of those stations. If you consider the 
people who watch the stations, you will find also that the viewership 
of these network-owned stations, indeed, is very small.
  It is not as if a couple of networks have all the viewers and are 
therefore monopolizing what people see and there is no diversity. That 
is simply not the fact at all. If you look at Viacom, which owns CBS, 
in prime time viewing, they have about 3.4 percent--3.4 percent of the 
total TV households. News Corp, which owns Fox, has about 3.1 percent. 
General Electric, which owns NBC, has 2.8 percent. And Disney, which 
has ABC stations, has about 1.5 percent of the total TV households 
watching their network programming in prime time.
  The problem with the argument that the cap is somehow going to change 
things and make a concentration of ownership of what people see makes 
no sense whatsoever, because the way it is currently measured, stations 
that are in large television markets are assumed to have everybody in 
the market watching their stations.
  A station that is owned by the network that happens to have a station 
in Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, New York, or Chicago probably exceeds a 
cap of 35 percent of the potential viewing audience, but in reality 
they may have only a very small number of people in those cities 
actually watching them.
  So the standard of measurement that we use is totally illogical. It 
would be like saying an automobile dealer in New York has 6 percent of 
the total sales in the United States because New York is about 6 
percent of the market. That would be fine if the automobile dealer sold 
every car that is bought in New York, but that is not the case. There 
are probably literally thousands of other competitors in that market.
  The same thing is true in the television market. As an example, an 
ABC station in Los Angeles does not have everybody in the Los Angeles 
market watching their station. There are probably 200 to 300 additional 
stations that a viewer can watch in the evenings and look at a diverse 
range of programs that happen to be available.
  So the argument that because a station happens to have a tower in a 
large city it has all the viewers in that city is illogical at best and 
misleading in fact.
  Another point is when we look at the amount of diversity that 
networks give, obviously the studies have shown they, in fact, offer 
far more local programming than nonnetwork-owned stations. Those facts 
are clear. They are indisputable.
  I think what we do in saying we are going to throw out what the FCC 
has done makes no sense. The network-owned stations, in fact, show 
about 37 percent more local news than locally owned stations do. So I 
argue that this resolution be voted down.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of S.J. Res. 17, 
the bipartisan resolution of disapproval which would overturn the 
Federal Communications Commission's new rules on broadcast media 
ownership. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure 
because I believe the FCC has acted in gross disregard of its mandate, 
of good public policy, and of the will of the American people.
  When the public became aware that the Federal Communications 
Commission was considering new rules on media consolidation earlier 
this year, the explosion of concern was immediate, heartfelt, and 
unprecedented. Close to three-quarters of a million people registered 
their views with the FCC before it issued its decision, more than for 
any proceeding in its history. Public opinion was almost unanimous in 
opposition to further relaxation of media ownership restrictions.
  So how did the FCC respond to this clear statement of the will of the 
people? With the back of its hand. Only one official public hearing was 
held. This was more than carelessness or bureaucratic inertia. This was 
simple disdain for the public in whose interest the FCC by statute is 
required to act.
  Among the many letters I have received on this issue was one from 
Nicholas Dzubay, a Republican alderman on the city council of Barron, 
WI. Alderman Dzubay said his area's radio stations were suffocating 
under the control of a single corporation. He hopes we will not allow 
television and other broadcast media in his area to be monopolized in 
the same way.
  I was also particularly struck by a letter from the Reverend Robert 
Stiefvater, the Vocations Director for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. He 
wrote:

       I find it very difficult to get news into our local market 
     here in Southeastern Wisconsin. The FCC's June 2 decision to 
     radically weaken the remaining ownership rules will 
     unacceptably harm my ability, the Archdiocese's and its 
     community's ability to receive and distribute local 
     independent programming.

  If any of us doubts the dangers of the road down which the FCC wants 
to send us, the story of American radio stands as a powerful warning. 
Unprecedented consolidation followed the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, but the real story is told over the airwaves. Radio does not 
sound like it used to. Like most of us in the Senate, I travel a lot, 
and wherever I go, radio stations sound more and more alike. Why? 
Because they are no longer programmed by local DJs but by executives at 
corporate headquarters hundreds of miles away.

  As we begin to examine the issue of file-sharing, and look for ways 
to protect copyright owners and artists from infringement of the 
copyrights on works they struggled to create, we should keep in mind 
that there used to be a time when American young people heard new music 
on the radio, when they explored the variety of musical styles and 
genres by flipping channels. DJs used to make a name for themselves by 
playing new artists, or taking changes on records other DJs had 
overlooked. New local programmers do not have the freedom to deviate 
from the corporate playlist, and young people are turning off their 
radios and booting up file-sharing programs like Kazaa.
  The homogenization of American radio is a grim predictor of the 
consequences of deregulation. If allowed to stand, the FCC rules will 
ravage the independence and character of other forms of media, from 
television to newspapers, the way radio has already been ravaged. This 
resolution is our chance to say no.
  If this resolution of disapproval passes, I hope the FCC will finally 
understand how seriously we in Congress feel about this issue. I hope 
the FCC gets the message. They did not just make an honest mistake. 
They did not just misinterpret a complicated or ambiguous statute. They 
headed off in entirely the wrong direction. They ignored the will of 
the American people. That is why I will support this resolution, and I 
urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the resolution 
that we have before us today. I will make a few points that are being 
overlooked in this debate. First, when the original ideas for this cap 
on percentage of media ownership were put into place, they were put 
into place because of the principle that we did not want a small group 
of people owning our airwaves to the point where they would be able to 
control thought, whether it is political thought or any other kinds of 
thought, in the United States. So when these were put into place, we 
had basically three networks.
  When I was growing up, there virtually was no cable and everybody had 
over-the-air broadcast television. We had the three stations, and 
whatever were on those three stations is what one watched. We were 
lucky to have one or two, maybe three, radio stations, especially if we 
were not in a major media market.

[[Page S11504]]

  The reality of today is that we not only have the over-the-air 
broadcast with the three networks, we also have Fox, UPN, and others, 
but we have systems whereby the vast majority of the homes in America 
can either get cable or some kind of a direct satellite TV system that 
has hundreds of stations which provide news, which provide 
entertainment, which provide all kinds of information.
  In media markets, for instance, where I live in Las Vegas, NV, 
someone cannot turn the dial without getting a new radio station, both 
AM and FM. The choices are incredible. Other types of information we 
have coming into our household today include the Internet. Anybody can 
set up Web sites or news information-sharing sources. That is becoming 
a larger part of how people get their information.
  Other than the major media outlets, there is the Drudge Report and 
other places on the Internet where people are getting information. The 
point is that there are so many more places for information to be had 
today than when these rules at 25-percent caps were initially put into 
place.
  The other major point I make is that what we are talking about is 
potential viewership. Right now, the cap is set at 35 percent. It wants 
to be raised to 45 percent. I believe the FCC tinkered a little bit 
around the edges. This is not the tidal wave of change that people are 
talking about. This is a minor change in that it is potential 
viewership, it is how many homes can be reached. It is not how many 
people are watching a station at any one time. It is how much potential 
reach can one have into the home?
  So we are not only saying it does not matter how many choices one 
has, it only matters how many homes can somebody potentially reach. It 
does not matter if somebody reaches 100 percent of the homes, as long 
as they have plenty of other choices. We should be making sure there 
are plenty of choices. When people choose which station they watch, 
they should be free to choose whatever stations they want.
  We have also heard mention in this debate about cross-ownership with 
newspapers. One of the big complaints I hear about localism is that a 
lot of the TV stations today do not cover local politics. We know when 
there is cross-ownership there are more resources, especially in 
smaller media markets where necessarily TV stations or the newspapers 
do not have the kind of resources to put good reporters on the beat and 
they do not cover as much local politics. When there is cross-
ownership, we see 50 percent more local news and public affairs 
programming, and an important thing is that local politics is covered. 
This is one of the big gripes I had in my last few campaigns, that the 
local TV stations--whether they are owned inside the State or outside 
the State, it was the same thing--didn't cover local politics enough.

  I happen to be a Republican. In Las Vegas, NV, these two entities I 
am going to talk about lean more to the left. There is a TV station in 
cross-ownership with one of the newspapers in Las Vegas and, since they 
have been in existence, the coverage of local politics, not only by 
them but also by their competitors, has increased dramatically. I think 
that is good. That is more localism. There is cross-ownership there, 
but that is localism.
  I think the precautions the FCC has put into place on cross-
ownership, where you have to have a certain number of TV stations 
within a market if there is only one major newspaper, are the right 
kind of precautions to put in.
  The point is, are we giving people choice? Where they choose to view 
is up to them. We should not be in the business of regulating what they 
watch, what they read, and who owns those, if we have enough choices in 
an area. I actually believe the FCC could have gone farther than they 
went. This is a very conservative move they have made today. If we are 
starting to be in the business of regulating how many people you can 
attract to your television stations, then we are starting to regulate 
whether you are getting too popular. That seems to be wrongheaded, in 
my opinion.
  It seems to be right that if you have a couple of gas stations in an 
area, as long as you have choice among the gas stations, that is the 
important aspect. You don't want a monopoly saying this is the only gas 
station to which you can go. If we have 200 different gas stations, it 
doesn't matter whether Exxon reaches 100 percent of the cities in the 
United States. If there are 200 different gas stations in each one of 
the markets around the country, who cares? Because there would be 
competition to make sure Exxon is keeping its gas at the right price; 
otherwise, they would not be able to compete.
  That is the same thing we have here. It really doesn't matter, in my 
opinion, whether ABC or NBC covers the entire United States. If there 
are 200 active choices just on television to be able to choose from, 
then let people choose where they are going to watch based on their 
remote control or based on how they flip channels. That seems to be the 
right kind of choices America should be all about.
  We are in this fear. There are some on the right and there are some 
on the left who are afraid that either liberals or the conservatives 
are going to control too much of the media and control too much thought 
in one regard. Whichever side of the political spectrum people may have 
had a bad personal experience because in their area maybe the liberals 
controlled it or in another area maybe the conservatives controlled it. 
People complain about Fox News today; people complain about talk radio; 
you hear conservatives complaining about the major TV networks and all 
that. But as long as people have the choices of where they view, the 
market will determine where they get their information based on people 
choosing which stations they choose to watch.
  That seems to me to be the American way. Let there be plenty of 
choices out there. Let freedom ring, basically, and then Americans will 
choose what the percentage of viewership is based on the choices they 
make.
  In this Senator's opinion, this resolution before us today would go 
the exact opposite way of that we should be going. We should be 
liberalizing these rules so broadcast stations have a chance to 
compete. We are watching daily the quality of programming in our 
broadcast television go down because it is incredibly expensive to 
produce those shows today. So we are seeing more shows like 
``Survivor,'' with these people on reality television shows that 
frankly don't cost a lot of money to produce because you don't have to 
pay the big actors. We want to reverse that trend, go the other way, 
and the way to do that is to liberalize the ownership rules.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Washington, Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, like many Americans, I was disappointed 
by the Federal Communications Commission's recent order on media 
ownership. As my colleagues know, on June 2 the FCC voted to relax the 
rules on media ownership. That order could reduce local news coverage 
and could hinder the diversity of views presented in the news media.
  I rise in support of the bipartisan resolution offered by Senators 
Dorgan and Lott to invalidate the FCC's media ownership order. Passage 
of this resolution will help ensure that the marketplace of ideas is 
not dominated by a few corporate conglomerates at the expense of our 
citizens and our democracy.
  Since its founding, our Nation has always recognized the importance 
of a free press in helping citizens make informed decisions on critical 
public issues. Over the past few years, we have seen massive mergers 
take place in many industries, but Americans recognize that the news 
media are different. They don't just produce a product to make a 
profit. They also provide a vital public service that could be 
undermined if just a few mega-corporations control what we can read, 
see and hear. That is why the FCC's order has provoked such a large 
public backlash.
  By a 3-2 vote, the FCC made two major changes. First, it lifted a 
restriction that prevents mergers between newspaper and television 
stations in the same market. This is known as the cross-ownership rule. 
Until now, that restriction has ensured that one company does not 
control both newspaper

[[Page S11505]]

and television coverage in an area. That helps ensure that consumers 
have access to diverse sources of information.
  By eliminating this cross-ownership rule, however, consumers could 
end up with fewer voices and perspectives on the public airwaves and in 
the newspaper. The number one television station in a market could be 
owned by the dominant newspaper or even the only newspaper in that same 
market. We are not talking about something that could happen in just 
one or two cities. This could happen all over the country. Down the 
road, the order could encourage just a handful of powerful corporations 
to own nearly every media outlet. That could hinder diverse and 
alternative viewpoints. It could also mean fewer reporters and 
resources for covering local and community events.
  The newspaper market is already much less diverse than it was 25 
years ago. Since 1975, two-thirds of independent newspaper owners have 
disappeared. The FCC's first order sets the stage for a further 
reduction in independent newspaper ownership.
  The FCC's second order would allow broadcast networks to own more 
stations across the country. Currently, one broadcast network cannot 
own stations that reach more than 35 percent of the public. The FCC 
just raised that limit to 45 percent. This order threatens to reduce 
the amount of local news coverage available to citizens. Just look at 
what has happened in the radio industry. National radio networks have 
gobbled up local stations. Many have consolidated their news operations 
to the detriment of local consumers. Getting rid of local news coverage 
is not good for our local communities and their residents. This change 
could be especially troubling in rural areas.
  I have been working on this issue for several months, and I believe 
we have reached a critical juncture that calls for Senate action.
  On April 9, nearly 2 months before the ruling, I sent a letter to FCC 
Chairman Michael Powell along with 14 other U.S. Senators from both 
political parties. We asked the FCC to let the Congress and the public 
review and comment on the proposed changes before they were enacted.
  When the order came out in June, I expressed my concerns.
  A couple of weeks ago in the Appropriations Committee, I echoed the 
comments of Senators Dorgan and Hutchison on the need to either fix or 
eliminate this order through action on the Senate floor, and that is 
why I'm here today in support of this resolution.
  The rule was scheduled to take effect on September 4, but was 
postponed when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary 
stay. This stay could be lifted if the FCC meets the court's 
requirements, so the Senate needs to act quickly.
  One option before the Senate is to pass a law invalidating the FCC's 
order. Unfortunately, that approach would still leave the door open for 
the FCC to simply rewrite the rule and do an ``end run'' around 
Congress. A better way to invalidate the rule is to use the 
Congressional Review Act, CRA. It would stop the rule and would also 
prevent the FCC from re-imposing it later under a different name.
  In the Appropriations Committee, we included a provision that would 
lower the media cap back to 35 percent. That mirrored a similar 
provision in the House's Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
Appropriations bill. We must finish the job today by using the CRA to 
invalidate the whole rule.
  Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans get their news from local TV 
and newspapers. We cannot allow a handful of corporations to dictate 
what all Americans can see, hear, and read as they make decisions on 
critical public issues. I urge my colleagues to vote for diverse media 
ownership by supporting this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Alaska such time 
as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I oppose this resolution which would 
disapprove all of the FCC's recent rulings on media ownership. I oppose 
it for several reasons.
  In the first place, the court of appeals has stayed this resolution, 
and it is reviewing its contents. I do not think it is appropriate for 
the Senate to pass such a resolution when there already exists 
legislation that addresses the most contentious media ownership issues.
  As one of the original sponsors of the legislation that is on the 
calendar already, I urge the Senate to take up that bill and not 
approve this resolution. My legislation, S. 1046, has the support of a 
majority of the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee.

  I do not support this attempt to unravel everything that the FCC did 
regarding the media ownership rules. For the most part, I think the 
Commission did a good job on the media ownership issues, absent one 
issue regarding 35 percent.
  My main concern all along was to keep the national ownership cap at 
the 35 percent level, and that was the primary focus of the bill that I 
introduced. In fact, that bill already passed out of the Commerce 
Committee.
  My bill prohibits ownership of TV broadcast stations if the ownership 
exceeds 35 percent of the national TV audience. It maintains the status 
quo for the cap and closely tracks what Congress originally intended in 
the Telecom Act.
  There were several amendments that were added to my bill in the 
Commerce Committee which addressed other parts of the rules. One was 
offered by my colleague from North Dakota. That amendment undid the 
Commission's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban.
  I didn't agree with his original amendment because I thought that the 
FCC's decision to lift the cross-ownership ban was prudent. I was 
concerned that the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota didn't 
contemplate situations in small markets where cross-ownership between 
newspapers and TV stations is necessary. Therefore, in committee I 
added language to his amendment which allows for a waiver procedure in 
small markets.
  This pending resolution, however, does not contemplate the small 
markets at all in the context of cross-ownership. This concerns me and 
should certainly concern others as well, especially those who represent 
small markets.
  Last week the Third Circuit issued an order staying the FCC media 
ownership rules, pending resolution of the consolidated proceeding 
before that court. Therefore, this Third Circuit stay has creates 
status quo allowing the stake holders to fully brief and argue their 
sides.
  Finally, the issue that has received the most support and attention 
from my colleagues and from diverse interest groups is the 35 percent 
cap issue. That issue has been addressed by both the House in the CJS 
appropriations bill and by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the 
CJS bill.
  Therefore, with all of these various tracks already in play, I don't 
think it is wise to open another can of worms on the same issues. It is 
not productive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a 
statement on the matter before us.
  Mr. President, the Senate faces a critical decision today--whether 
new media ownership rules proposed by the FCC truly serve the public 
interest. They do not, and we should pass this resolution of 
disapproval and force the FCC to rework them.
  On June 2, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new 
broadcast media ownership rules that would allow greater concentration 
of ownership of U.S. broadcast television stations, both at the 
national and local levels. At the national level, a single owner could 
own stations capable of reaching up to 45 percent of the national 
audience--up from 35 percent--under the new rules. A single entity 
could reach up to twice that percentage of the national audience if he 
or she owned UHF stations. In most markets, duopolies ownership of two 
stations in the same market would be allowed, and triopolies would be 
allowed in the largest markets.
  The new rules would also allow cross-ownership of broadcast 
television stations and major newspapers in all but the smallest of 
media markets as well as greater cross-ownership of television

[[Page S11506]]

and radio stations. The rules would theoretically allow one owner to 
reach 90 percent of national TV audience and, in a large market, own 
three television stations, eight radio stations, the only daily 
newspaper, and the cable company.
  The public overwhelmingly opposes these new rules. In fact, a recent 
CNN poll found that 96 percent of Americans believe there is already 
too much media concentration--that ownership of too many media outlets 
is already under the control of too few corporations.
  Why should Congress care? For several reasons.
  Congress has repeatedly mandated, most recently in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, that the FCC serve the public interest 
by promoting competition, diversity of viewpoints, and localism. These 
rules fail on all counts.
  First, competition. Remember that there are a limited number of 
broadcast licenses available. Ted Turner, who bought one station and 
turned it into a media giant, addressed the rules' potential effect on 
competition. Turner wrote in an op-ed that if he had been faced with 
the FCC's new rules, he never could have started his own media company: 
``If a young media entrepreneur were trying to get started today under 
these proposed rules, he or she wouldn't be able to buy a UHF station, 
as I did. They're all bought up,'' he wrote.
  Turner added that even if that young entrepreneur could buy a UHF 
station, he or she wouldn't have access to the programming and 
distribution needed, as both are largely controlled by the major media 
companies. ``Today both (programming and distribution) are owned by 
conglomerates that keep the best for themselves and leave the worst for 
you if they sell anything to you at all. It's hard to compete when your 
suppliers are owned by your competitors,'' he said.
  Second, independence and diversity of viewpoints. Many argue there 
are an infinite number of media outlets today, especially given the 
huge growth in cable channels and internet addresses. But the vast 
majority of Americans get their news and information from television 
news and/or their local newspaper. And realize that none of the cable 
news channels have anywhere near the viewership of the broadcast media, 
and that most of the major cable and internet news outlets are 
affiliated with the print and broadcast media that are already 
controlled in large part by just a handful of companies. Diversity of 
viewpoints is already in jeopardy, and the new rules would only 
exacerbate the situation.
  Third, localism. If many of those so-called diverse viewpoints are 
actually controlled by a handful of companies, then one can see that 
localism, too, is in trouble. The loss of localism in radio is well 
known, sometimes with dangerous consequences like the famous Minot, ND 
case that Senator Dorgan has talked about. In fact, the lack of 
localism in radio is so undeniable that even the FCC has agreed to 
address it in the one aspect of the proposed rules that makes sense.
  But localism in television is also at risk local entertainment 
choices as well as news. James Goodman of Capital Broadcasting in North 
Carolina explained it well in his testimony before the Commerce 
Committee. He owns Fox and CBS stations in Raleigh. Out of respect for 
his local audience's sensibilities, he has refused to carry either 
network's ``reality TV'' shows, including ``Temptation Island,'' 
``Cupid,'' ``Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire,'' and ``Married by 
America.'' His actions have met with intense resistance from the 
networks, and he has expressed his grave concern that if the networks' 
ability to own more and more of the broadcast outlets goes unchecked, 
local stations and communities won't have any ability to choose their 
own programming. They will be forced to air the network fare, even when 
it is offensive to local viewers.
  Finally, and most important, there is an even more basic threat posed 
by these new rules: It is a threat to democracy itself. The integrity 
of our democracy depends on an informed electorate. Again, the vast 
majority of Americans get their news and information from 
television and/or their local newspaper. If we allow the limited 
broadcast spectrum to be controlled by a handful of companies, how can 
we maintain the free marketplace of ideas?

  Those in the print media rightfully chafe at the prospect of 
government restrictions. Anyone in America has the right to print their 
ideas. But when we talk of broadcast media, we are talking about public 
airwaves, and that is a different matter altogether. Again, space on 
the spectrum is limited, and so are broadcast licenses. And the FCC was 
created to regulate them in the public interest--not to rubber-stamp 
the industry's wish list.
  Not only are the new rules a threat to democracy, but the process by 
which they were approved is a threat to democracy.
  In response to pressure from the Democratic appointees to the 
Commission, FCC Chairman Michael Powell called only one official field 
hearing. Field hearings are intended to solicit input from the general 
public from across the country to overcome the ``inside the Beltway'' 
virus that often infects policies born in Washington, DC. Chairman 
Powell's ``field'' hearing was held 90 miles from Washington, and much 
of his invited testimony came from industry representatives, many of 
whom, in fact, live and work inside the Beltway.
  It appears the Chairman thought a pro-industry decision would sail 
through with minimal attention. After all, other than paid lobbyists, 
how many people have the time to follow the details of an FCC decision-
making process? But a funny thing happened on the way to the vote. As 
soon as people outside the Beltway did learn what the FCC was planning 
to do, they protested, and they protested in large numbers.
  Of the 2 million individuals who commented on the FCC's proposed 
rules, 99 percent opposed them. Ninety-nine percent. Of the first 
10,000 comments that were sampled separately, there were only 57 
comments in favor of the rules, and only 11 of those 57 were from 
people with no vested interest in the rules changes.
  Those margins are essentially unheard of in American politics. Near 
unanimity. But in the halls of the FCC, that overwhelmingly negative 
input was essentially ignored. The votes of the American people didn't 
count. Only three votes counted--the votes of three commissioners who 
decided that they knew better than 99 percent of the people who 
commented on the rules.
  The FCC's hasty process also effectively blocked public comment on 
many issues. Allowing for public comment isn't just the right thing to 
do. It generally leads to a better product. The FCC has an expert 
staff. But mistakes can and do happen. And an agency as determined to 
act quickly as the FCC was on this matter is more likely to make 
mistakes.
  One such apparent mistake affects my state of South Dakota and would 
classify Sioux Falls as having more television stations than Detroit. 
It does so by counting five public broadcast stations as separate 
stations even though they broadcast the same signal. As a result, Sioux 
Falls is considered to have 11 stations instead of 7. And Sioux Falls, 
the 112th-largest market by population, is counted as having more 
stations than Detroit, the 10th-largest market.
  Some commercial broadcasters own multiple stations that broadcast 
identical signals. FCC rules appropriately treat them as one station. 
But the exemption applies only to commercial stations, not public 
television stations. FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a South 
Dakota native, identified the error and encouraged his colleagues to 
correct it, but the Commission has not done so.
  The consequences of such an error are real. Because the new rules 
consider Sioux Falls to have 11 stations instead of 7, the city is 
placed in a category without any cross-ownership restrictions. That 
would allow the newspaper to acquire two television stations instead of 
one, and own twice as many radio stations as would be permitted if 
Sioux Falls were properly classified. Fortunately, I don't see any rush 
for that to happen. But who knows what a future owner of the Sioux 
Falls Argus Leader or one of the Sioux Falls television stations might 
wish to do? This is just the kind of mistake that could have been 
avoided if the FCC had employed the more deliberative, inclusive 
process that so many of us advocated.

[[Page S11507]]

  Let's review the mission of the Federal Communications Commission, as 
stated repeatedly by the Commission and by acts of Congress: to serve 
the public interest by promoting competition, diversity of viewpoints, 
and localism. The public interest--that phrase should be italicized in 
this debate.
  As we define the public interest, the public--the people who receive 
the radio and TV news and programming that beams across the airwaves 
their taxes paid for--has a right to be heard. Public comment, input, 
and involvement in our democratic processes is not a box to be checked 
before the petitions, call, e-mails, and letters are thrown in the 
trash and disregarded. It is a basic tenet of our social contract and 
the principle that underlies our form of government. Of the people, by 
the people, for the people.
  I am all for ensuring the rights of the minority. Indeed, I feel 
strongly about our civic responsibility to ensure that a reactionary or 
powerful majority does not trample on the rights of those in our 
society whose voices are not as easily heard or fully represented. In 
fact, that's one key reason I oppose the substance of these rules--I 
fear the voices of those who may have quite valuable things to say, but 
lack the means to gobble up TV and radio stations, will not be heard.

  But in this case we don't have a powerful majority trampling on the 
rights of the vulnerable. We have three people--with an obvious push 
from the current administration--trampling on the rights of the 
majority. To add insult to injury, they are telling the majority--the 
American people--that they are doing this in their interest. Of course, 
the interests being served are those of the handful of large media 
companies that already control a huge percentage of America's major 
media outlets.
  Let me be clear: I don't blame the media companies for advocating for 
their own interests. They have every right to fight for their 
interests. I do blame the Chairman of the FCC and the other 
commissioners who voted for these rules for failing to give the rest of 
the country the consideration they deserved in this debate.
  The Congressional Review Act was intended for exactly this kind of 
situation. A Federal agency has turned a deaf ear to the very public it 
was intended to serve. It is appropriate to send them back to the 
drawing board, especially if that is the only option available to us.
  The Commerce Committee actually reported a bill that deals with the 
issues individually, and I would be happy to debate that bill. But it 
has been made clear to us that the majority has no intention of 
bringing the Commerce Committee bill to the floor, and we have no 
ability to force it to the floor before these rules take effect.
  Mr. President, I want to make one final point. This isn't a partisan 
issue. The Republican supporters of this resolution of disapproval 
include Republican Party stalwarts like Trent Lott and Kay Bailey 
Hutchison. It is not a liberal versus conservative issue, either.
  The list of well-recognized people and organizations who oppose all 
or part of the FCC's media ownership rules is one of the strangest list 
of strange bedfellows you will ever hear. Opponents include Walter 
Cronkite, William Safire, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Organization for Women, 
Senator Jesse Helms, the National Council of Churches, MoveOn, the 
Parents Television Council, former Universal Studios Chairman and CEO 
Barry Diller, Mort Zuckerman, and many, many more. That sampling of the 
list gives you a sense of how broad and deep the opposition to these 
FCC rules is.
  We should respect that overwhelming opposition and vote accordingly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is 
remaining on both sides, and at what time will the vote take place?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 39 seconds on your side 
and 15 minutes 45 seconds on the other side. The vote will occur around 
11 o'clock.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Dorgan for his 
remarkable leadership on this most important matter.
  Drastic times require drastic measures. That is why I stand with my 
colleagues today in support of this resolution which will help and 
safeguard one of our most precious possessions--the right of free and 
diverse exchange of opinions.
  The decision that has been made by the FCC will no doubt pave the way 
for even greater concentration of media ownership in the hands of a 
select few and deprive the public of the diversity of viewpoints that I 
happen to believe is so essential to democracy and objective reporting 
in America.
  The FCC's June vote on media ownership ultimately, as I said in the 
committee, is truly the ``deregulatory'' express out of the station. 
Now we are on track toward even greater ownership concentration and 
unfettered consolidation.
  Some have said that with exponentially more media outlets than ever 
before, we should have nothing to fear. While more mouths speaking is 
good, having more mouthpieces guarantees neither diversity of opinion 
nor information. The point is the amalgamation of control in media 
outlets. We cannot ignore the fact that diversity of discourse in 
America is an essential underpinning.
  When it comes to changes allowing media mergers in over 150 markets 
representing 98 percent of the American population, and when reports 
show that 5 companies or fewer control about 60 percent of television 
households in just the next few years, we should all be very concerned.
  I know some have said the process and the outcome of the FCC media 
ownership, as we heard from the FCC Commissioners before the Senate 
Commerce Committee, were preordained by the statutes and by the courts. 
The courts did not prescribe what the limits should be. Neither did 
they set a date certain. Rather, what they said was that whatever the 
limits are, there needs to be a solid factual record demonstrating that 
they are in the public interest.
  How does one determine what is in the public interest? It is 
aggressively seeking the input of all stakeholders--not just simply 
notifying the public, notifying the Congress, and that simple 
disclosure is, in and of itself, sufficient. Absolutely not--not in 
this unprecedented realm of issues.
  When we look at the record, what we find is that the FCC only held 
one public hearing. The committee urged them to conduct a series of 
public hearings across the country. But they only held one public 
hearing. Even with one public hearing, the FCC received an 
unprecedented amount of input from the public when it came to this 
issue. Even though they did not have the opportunity to participate in 
public hearings, they sent more than 700,000 e-mails, letters, and 
calls from across the country.
  This is unprecedented in the history of the FCC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to speak in opposition to S.J. Res. 17. I had the opportunity 
to make a full statement last week. In my time as chairman of the 
Senate Commerce Committee, no issue has erupted so rapidly and evoked 
such passion from the public as media consolidation. These are 
critically important decisions.
  If we could have a little straight talk this morning, if the Senate 
passes this resolution, there is no objective observer that believes 
the House will act accordingly. Now, the Senator from North Dakota may 
think it is important to have this Senate on record, and I don't 
disagree with that at all. Any prospects of it becoming a reality is 
minimal, at best. We should all recognize that.
  Second, all kinds of allegations have crept in about various 
motivations on both sides of this issue. Some have been accused of 
wanting to return to the fairness doctrine. Some are saying it is 
because of ideological bias, dislike of talk radio, or dislike of the 
New

[[Page S11508]]

York Times acquiring more cable companies and media. I don't accept any 
of those arguments from both the right and left. There is legitimate 
basis for concern about continued consolidation of the media. This is 
not the appropriate vehicle for addressing that in 4 hours of debate 
and a blanket repudiation of regulations, some of which have been good, 
in my view, because they have reined in, at least to some degree, the 
continued consolidation in the most egregious and most incredible media 
consolidation, and that is radio in America today.
  We have legislation passed through the Commerce Committee, S. 1046, 
which after being composed, marked up, amended, and debated in the 
Commerce Committee is on the calendar and ready for floor 
consideration. If we are serious about addressing this issue, we should 
do it by calling up from the calendar for debate and amendment S. 1046 
and we can explore the myriad and complex aspects of this issue.
  For example, the Appropriations Committee has now added, I am told, 
to their bill the 45-percent cap being rolled back to 35 percent. 
According to BusinessWeek magazine, the 45-percent cap has become a 
rallying symbol, but the regulations that would truly reorder America's 
media landscape and affect local communities have flown under the 
radar. These allow companies to snap up not only two to three local TV 
stations in a market but also a newspaper and up to eight radio 
stations.
  If the courts and Congress are worried about the dangers of media 
consolidation, they will have to resist calling it a day after 
dispensing with the network cap and go after the rules with real bite. 
As it now stands, TV's big networks will be losers among media outlets, 
thanks mostly to vociferous lobbying by independent TV affiliates. With 
strong ties to lawmakers who depend on them for campaign coverage, the 
affiliates have succeeded in getting a House vote against the 45 
percent and will likely see a rerun of that episode when the Senate 
votes by October.
  With Fox and CBS already each owning stations that cover about 40 
percent of the Nation's audience, going up another 5 percent is not 
going to make a dramatic difference. In contrast, opening the 
floodgates to allow local behemoths to combine newspapers, TV, and 
radio stations under one roof would change media ownership in towns and 
cities, concentrating it in the hands of a few. Even in midsized cities 
such as San Antonio, for instance, one company might own the leading 
newspaper, two TV stations, eight radio stations, and several cable 
channels.
  What we are doing is interesting but if we are going to address this 
issue in a serious fashion, and there is reason for concern, we ought 
to do it in a fashion far different from this.
  I point out that the CRA precludes an agency adopting similar rules 
without substantive congressional legislation. In other words, the FCC 
would be prevented, if this is passed, from acting on any rules 
regarding media consolidation. Almost all Members of this body have 
some degree of concern at least about some aspect of it.
  I hope all of our colleagues had the opportunity to see the Wall 
Street Journal article on September 15 entitled: Show of Strength: How 
Media Giants Are Reassembling The Old Oligopoly; Mix of Broadcast and 
Cable Proves Lucrative in Making Deals.
  Viacom and its big media peers have been snapping up cable channels 
because they are one of the few entertainment outlets generating strong 
revenue growth these days. More broadly, the media giants have 
discovered that owning both broadcast and cable outlets provides 
powerful new leverage over advertisers and cable- and satellite-TV 
operators. The golaiths are using this advantage to wring better fees 
out of the operators that carry their channels and are pressuring those 
operators into carrying new and untried channels. They're also finding 
ways to coordinate promotions across their different holdings.
  Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General Electric Co. 
and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach more than 50 percent of 
the prime-time TV audience through their combined broadcast and cable 
outlets. The total rises to 80 percent if you include the parents of 
newer networks--such as New Corp.'s Fox and AOL Time Warner Inc.'s WB--
and NBC's pending acquisition of Vivendi Universal SA's cable assets, 
estimates Tom Wolzein, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
  The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old programming 
oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr. Wolzein, a former executive 
at NBC. Of the top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by one of the 
big five media companies.
  The idea of owning broadcast networks as well as cable channels is 
``comfortable for people like ourselves,'' says Bob Wright, chairman of 
NBC, which two weeks ago signed a preliminary agreement to acquire 
Vivendi Universal's USA and Sci-Fi cable channels, along with the 
Universal film studio, bolstering a stable of cable channels that 
includes Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC. ``There has been so much 
consolidation'' among the distributors that ``unless you are equally 
big . . . you risk a situation where you can be marginalized,'' says 
Viacom President Karmazin.
  Viacom president Karmazin is a man, who, by the way, I happen to 
admire enormously.
  I am not blaming any of these people, executives or organizations, 
for seeking to gain as much market share as they can. But the reason I 
refer to this Wall Street Journal article is this is a complex set of 
issues. When we are talking about cable consolidation, cable rates, all 
of the other.
  Since 1990, almost half of the top 50 cable channels have changed 
hands. Among the big deals: Disney's $19 billion acquisition of ESPN's 
parent, Capital Cites/ABC, and Time Warner's $6.7 billion purchase of 
CNN parent Turner Broadcasting, both negotiated in the summer of 1995. 
In 2001, Disney bought the Family Channel from News Corp. for $5.2 
billion.
  Last year, NBC bought Bravo for $1.3 billion. CBS, owner of The 
Nashville Network--now Spike TV--and Country Music Television, itself 
was gobbled up in 2000 by MTV's longtime parent, Viacom. Viacom has 
since added channels such as BET and Comedy Central.
  Mr. Karmazin recently boasted to investors that the company's 
broadcast and cable outlets reach 26 percent of the Nation's viewers in 
prime time, a significantly bigger share than any other company. Having 
such a big market share is ``real important for lots of reasons, in 
terms of dealing with advertisers and our cable partners,'' he told 
investors.
  There is something going on here that deserves investigation, not 
just a simple CRA vote and then move on. At the hearing before the 
Commerce Committee, all five FCC Commissioners agreed--all five, for 
one of the first times I have ever heard the FCC Commissioners agree to 
anything--the consolidation of radio that occurred in local markets has 
been excessive. While it received little credit amid the outcry against 
the regulations, the FCC attempted to address this problem by 
describing new market definitions designed to tighten the limits on 
logical radio ownership.
  The resolution would have the perverse consequences of eliminating 
these efforts and prohibiting the FCC from adopting similar measures in 
the future, a move that surely will be applauded in the corporate 
offices of large radio station groups that hope to perpetuate their 
ability to benefit from existing loopholes.
  Likewise, this resolution could have grave unintended consequences 
for other media ownership rules the Commission decided to leave 
unchanged.
  For example, the FCC retained its limit on the number of local radio 
stations one entity may own and retained its rule prohibiting one 
entity from owning two of the four largest television networks. The 
decision to retain these rules will also be rejected if the resolution 
is enacted. If the FCC were to read this statute, as many have, as 
limiting its permissible actions in biennial review proceeding to 
exclusively deregulatory changes to its rules, the FCC may have no 
choice but to raise the number of stations that one entity is permitted 
to own in a local market or eliminate the dual rhetoric network rule. 
This cannot be the outcome intended by the sponsors of this resolution, 
though it is one that could conceivably result.
  Finally, the use of the CRA in the present case will create a 
regulatory

[[Page S11509]]

void likely to be filled only by uncertainty about the status of the 
FCC's media ownership rules. As a result, all of the rules, even those 
that the proponents of the resolution favor, may be vulnerable to court 
action. The absence of an affirmative congressional directive will cast 
considerable doubt on the FCC's ability to enforce its previous rules 
given that one of the FCC's previous attempts to retain the rules was 
found by the DC Circuit to be arbitrary and capricious. Another was 
found not to have justified that the rules are necessary in the public 
interest. In both cases, the DC Circuit remanded the rules to the FCC 
and directed the agency to either articulate a justification for 
retaining the rules or modify them. The lack of an enforceable FCC 
order will leave these court orders unanswered, risking additional 
court action that relaxes the rules even further or even invalidates 
them entirely.
  My point is that we have a very complex set of issues to address. I 
believe there is reason for concern about media consolidation, as the 
Senator from North Dakota has fairly overused the comment that there 
are many voices and one ventriloquist. At the same time this action 
would invalidate both good and bad, this action would make many believe 
that we have resolved the issue and moved on.
  On the calendar is S. 1046, a bill that was properly considered and 
reported out by the Commerce Committee. That is the way we should be 
addressing this issue so that this issue can be fully ventilated and 
fully understood.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I oppose the Dorgan Resolution, S. 17, which 
would block the entire Federal Communications Commission's ruling 
revising the rules on media ownership.
  Since the FCC issued this ruling on June 2, 2003, a multitude of 
interest groups have proclaimed that this decision represents a serious 
blow to democracy in America as we know it. To say that this claim is a 
gross exaggeration is a huge understatement.
  While I do not agree with every element of the FCC ruling, I must 
admit that I believe it would be short sighted to block the ruling 
entirely. I also think that every stakeholder who is concerned about 
this ruling should look at the facts that prompted the FCC to make this 
ruling. Furthermore, I believe it is imperative that one examine the 
actual facts in the ruling in order to dispel some of the myths that 
have surfaced with regard to it.
  In its ruling, the FCC incrementally increased the national TV 
ownership limit from 35 percent to 45 percent. What this says is that 
one company can own TV stations reaching no more than 45 percent of 
U.S. TV households. It does not mean that one company can own up to 45 
percent of all TV stations across the country. In addition, the ruling 
does not even say that a company can own stations whose programs reach 
45 percent of the viewing public or market share.
  For example, Newscorps, Fox, the second largest owner of stations 
currently owns 37 or 2.8 percent of the 1,340 commercial stations 
across the country. Under the new 45 percent cap set forth in the FCC 
ruling, Newscorps would be able to acquire, at best, another five 
stations nationwide. In light of this information and in light of the 
court mandates, the FCC action on this issue hardly represents a 
massive increase.
  The FCC promulgated this increase in response to several court 
decisions striking down specific limits on the number of broadcast 
entities that one company may own. Since 1998, the FCC has lost five 
out of five cases that challenged its previous media ownership rules. 
According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ``carries with it a presumption in 
favor of repealing or modifying the ownership rules (Fox v. FCC).''
  In the Fox v. FCC decision, which was handed down in February 2002, 
the court ruled that the FCC's action--on broadcast ownership limits--
was ``arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law'' because ``it 
failed to give an adequate reason for its decision'' to keep the 35 
percent cap. In the same case, the court ruled that the commission 
``provided no analysis on the state of competition in the television 
industry to justify its decision to retain the national cap.'' The 
court in its remanding decision ordered the FCC to rethink its rules on 
media ownership.
  Another aspect of the FCC ruling involved the modification of the 
FCC's rules relating to newspaper/broadcast cross ownership and radio-
television cross ownership. In its ruling, the FCC replaced these rules 
with a new set of cross media limits. It is important to understand 
that the FCC did not totally repeal the 28-year-old newspaper/broadcast 
ownership ban in all markets; it simply modified its rule with newer 
broadcast/cross ownership regulations to reflect the changing 
circumstances of today's diverse media marketplace.
  Under the new FCC rules, in small markets with three or fewer TV 
stations the ban will continue to be enforced. In mid-sized markets, 
with 4 to 8 TV stations, limited cross ownership is allowed. In diverse 
and competitive markets with 9 or more TV stations, the ban is lifted 
entirely.
  This is the major decision in the FCC ruling that I support, and it 
is the main reason that I cannot support the Dorgan resolution. Simply 
put, the previous rule supporting the cross ownership ban is outdated 
given the current diversity and multiple sources of news information in 
today's media marketplace.
  When the broadcast/newspaper cross ownership provisions were adopted 
in 1975, the three television networks of the time held more than 90 
percent of the viewing audience and only 17 percent of households 
subscribed to cable TV. However, due to the technological revolution of 
the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the 
number of news and information sources with the widespread availability 
of cable TV, satellite and the internet as well as substantial increase 
in the number of radio and TV stations, magazines, and free weekly 
newspapers.
  Yet, despite the availability of these new media sources, many groups 
are still objecting to this modest change in media cross ownership. 
They feel that this modification will drastically reduce the quality 
news and diversity of voices in the media. I believe there is strong 
evidence to refute this claim.
  Unlike other ownership rules, the FCC has actual historical data on 
what the effect of relaxing this ban will have on the media market. 
That is because there are already 49 media cross ownership entities 
that were grandfathered prior to the implementation of this ban in 
1975. Some of these cross ownership entities are in major markets such 
as New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Tampa, and Milwaukee.
  All of these existing cross ownership entities have had practically 
no adverse impact on competition. In the past 23 years, there has been 
no major court case, FCC, FTC, or Department of Justice, DOJ, action 
objecting to any of these grandfathered cross ownership media entities. 
Furthermore, the FCC informs me that no entity has ever challenged a 
license renewal of a TV station owned by a newspaper in the last 25 
years. Two recent studies, one by the FCC and one by the Project for 
Excellence in Journalism, also found that co-owned newspaper/broadcast 
combinations provide higher quality and more news and informational 
programming than other broadcast stations.
  In light of this evidence, I feel that the FCC's ruling on newspaper/
broadcast cross ownership needs to be preserved, and therefore, I 
oppose the Dorgan resolution.
  As stated previously, I do not agree with every aspect of the FCC 
ruling. I do not support the new method by which the FCC will utilize 
to define a local radio market. This new definition has resulted in 
many companies that own multiple radio stations exceeding the new 
station caps. While the FCC did grandfather all existing combinations 
to ensure that these radio companies would not be forced to divest 
stations that they legally acquired, it imposed harsh restrictions on 
the transferability or resale of these newly non-compliant radio 
station clusters.
  Under the new market definition, those radio clusters that no longer 
comply with local radio market limits may only be sold intact to small 
businesses. If a ``small business buyer'' cannot be found, a cluster 
owner must break up his or her cluster and sell the stations 
individually. I believe that this strict resale provision unfairly 
penalizes certain radio broadcasters, who

[[Page S11510]]

acquired their stations in good faith under the previous ownership 
framework.
  By narrowing the eligible market of buyers, this resale provision 
would prevent a radio cluster seller from receiving fair-market value 
on his or her investment. If most companies are prohibited from bidding 
on a cluster, the prices offered in these transactions will be 
considerably smaller than otherwise.
  I also believe this resale provision will only make bigger radio 
conglomerates stronger because it will result in the immediate breakup 
of clusters that directly compete with these conglomerates.
  I intend to petition the FCC for reconsideration of these new local 
radio rules set forth in the FCC order. However, I do not believe that 
the entire FCC order should be disapproved, and that is why I oppose 
the Dorgan resolution.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, drastic times require drastic measures and 
that's why I stand with my colleagues today in support of S.J. Res. 17, 
disapproving the FCC's June 2 vote to relax, and in some cases 
eliminate, the rules that safeguard one of our Nation's most precious 
possessions, the right of free and diverse exchange of opinion. This 
decision will pave the way for even greater concentration of media 
ownership in the hands of a select few and deprive the public to the 
diversity of viewpoints that are so important to democracy and 
objective reporting in this country.
  In response to the FCC's action, Senator Dorgan and I along with 
seven other colleagues sponsored S.J. Res. 17. This resolution would 
simply declare the FCC's June 2 rules on media ownership without force 
or effect and would leave in place the media ownership rules that 
existed prior to the Commission's decision.
  With the FCC's June vote on media ownership, the ``deregulatory 
express'' is out of the station--and we are now on track toward even 
greater ownership concentration and unfettered consolidation. Now, some 
have said that, with exponentially more media outlets than ever before, 
we should have nothing to fear. But while more mouths speaking is good, 
having more mouthpieces guarantees neither diversity of information nor 
opinion. The point is the amalgamation of control in media outlets and 
its impact on content--especially with the overwhelming majority of 
Americans receiving their news from television and newspapers.
  We cannot ignore that diversity of discourse in America is an 
essential underpinning of our society and our democracy. So when it 
comes to changes allowing media mergers in over 150 markets 
representing 98 percent of the American population--and when reports 
show that five companies or fewer could control about 60 percent of 
television households in just the next few years--we should all be very 
concerned.
  I know that some have said, well, the process and the outcome of the 
FCC's media ownership review were essentially preordained by statute 
and the courts. But the courts never proscribed what the limits should 
be. Neither did they set a date certain by which the FCC must have 
concluded its process. What the court did say is that, whatever the 
limits are, there needs to be a solid factual record demonstrating they 
are in the public interest.
  And what is the best way to determine public interest? It's to go 
above and beyond in notifying and providing full disclosure to the 
public and Congress, and aggressively soliciting input from all 
stakeholders--so the public can be confident the best possible decision 
has been reached. The FCC failed to do this. With more than 700,000 
individuals and groups weighing in against the FCC's rule change, the 
Commission held only one public hearing on the subject of media 
ownership, I can't help but think there must be a better way.
  Let me speak to the FCC's modification of the cross ownership ban, 
one of the more devastating changes made by the Commission on June 2. 
Many of us represent States that have communities with only one 
newspaper, under the new rules the FCC would allow that single 
remaining paper to be purchased by the dominant television broadcaster 
in the area. In the context of other FCC rules, the agency recognized 
that it is bad for local competition to allow 2 of the top 4 broadcast 
outlets to be consolidated, but in this context, the FCC is allowing 
the top TV station to buy the top newspaper in almost every media 
market in the country. Newspapers are one of the most important sources 
of independent reporting. When the leading TV station gobbles up the 
paper, what happens to the other TV broadcasters in the market? They 
simply can't compete at the same level. It seems apparent that the 
remaining TV stations do less news, or they move to softer news 
formats. This isn't good for news, this isn't good for democracy.
  If the FCC had acted to create more voices--perhaps by requiring 
those broadcasters who want a television-newspaper combination to start 
a new newspaper rather than just buying one--I could see the wisdom in 
their decision. Instead, the FCC has acted to reduce the total number 
of voices in communities all across the country. Some say that the 
FCC's decision will allow these newspaper/broadcast combinations in 
over 190 media markets, covering 98 percent of America's population. 
Since the newspaper/broadcast rule was put in place in 1975, we have 
already lost two-thirds of our independent newspaper owners. Let me 
reiterate that: two-thirds of our independent newspaper owners have 
disappeared since 1975. And somehow we're going to make democracy 
better by further reducing the number of independent newspaper owners 
by allowing broadcaster television owners to buy them--it just doesn't 
make sense.
  The issue of media ownership goes to the heart of our democracy and 
the crux of the way in which we form our opinions on other issues of 
critical importance. We need to be extremely careful that in 
deregulation we don't undermine diversity in the marketplace of ideas 
and information. I look forward to continuing my work in this area and 
urge the public to keep the pressure on Congress to undo the damage 
unleashed by the FCC on June 2. I ask that my colleagues support S.J. 
Res. 17.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise to outline my concerns about Senator 
Dorgan's resolution to disapprove the Federal Communications 
Commission's June 2, 2003 decision to relax the broadcast media 
ownership rules.
  The FCC's decision to increase the proportion of market share 
broadcasters may own in any given market from 35 percent to 45 percent 
and to give newspaper owners the ability to own radio stations and vice 
versa has raised significant questions relating to the proper scope of 
regulation and protection of our fundamental First Amendment values.
  As a procedural matter, I am concerned about the Senate acting on the 
Dorgan resolution given the pending court proceedings reviewing the 
FCC's rule modifications. On September 3, 2003, in Prometheus Radio 
Project v. Federal Communications Commission, the Third Circuit Court 
of Appeals stayed the effective date of the FCC's new rules, pending 
resolution of the appeal on the merits. No. 03-3388, 2003 U.S. App. 
LEXIS 18390. Given the procedural status of the FCC's rules, it is 
premature for the Senate to act on the Dorgan resolution. A more 
prudent course for the Senate is to await the Court of Appeals 
decision, review it carefully, and then determine what action, if any, 
is warranted.
  With respect to the substance of the FCC's rule modifications, I want 
to reiterate my strong support of the bedrock principles underlying the 
FCC's regulation of our Nation's media: diversity of viewpoints; 
localism; and competition. I have been--and remain--committed to these 
principles, particularly with respect to examining critical regulatory 
and enforcement issues surrounding increased concentration of our 
Nation's media outlets. We must preserve our fundamental First 
Amendment values by protecting our marketplace of ideas--that is, 
freedom of expression and diversity of viewpoints.
  When it comes to ensuring competition and diversity in our media 
markets, I have not--and will not--analyze the issue by blindly 
condemning all merger consolidations. To me, ``big'' is not necessarily 
bad. Rather, the issue of media consolidation requires a careful 
weighing of our Nation's interest in promoting competition and 
diversity.
  In my view, such an analysis requires careful examination of the 
potential

[[Page S11511]]

for anti-competitive conduct, rather than adherence to inflexible 
regulatory restrictions or hard and fast enforcement rules. Market 
forces--not Federal across-the-board regulations--will ensure that 
consumers benefit from a merger or consolidation in the media industry.
  Like many of my Senate colleagues, I am concerned about the health 
and well-being of the small and mid-sized media companies in our 
nation. In the State of Utah, we have many excellent small and mid-
sized media companies who provide a great service to all Utahns. To 
this end, traditional antitrust enforcement can more effectively and 
efficiently protect competition and enhance diversity than regulatory 
one-size-fits-all approaches. I believe appropriate enforcement of our 
nation's antitrust laws will provide greater protection to small and 
mid-sized media owners than any arbitrary FCC rules.
  In light of all of these considerations, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Dorgan resolution. Given the significant interest in the 
issue here in the Senate, we should monitor the court proceedings 
reviewing the FCC rule. Once the Court has acted, we should then 
determine what appropriate steps, if any, are needed to preserve and 
protect our bedrock First Amendment principles of media ownership: 
diversity, local programming and competition.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dorgan 
resolution, and in the hope that the FCC will take a careful, second 
look at the changes it made to media ownership rules.
  Not everything the FCC did was something I would oppose. For 
instance, I support what the FCC did in terms of allowing companies to 
own a combination of television, radio, and newspapers in the largest 
of media markets, like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York or San Francisco.
  But on the whole, the new FCC rules raise some very real concerns 
that one or two national companies may begin to dominate too much of 
the news and other content delivered to American homes.
  The American experiment has been one of free press, diversity of 
voices, fair competition, and the ability to hear, and to be heard. 
That experiment, in my opinion, has been a resounding success.
  Of course, the world has changed, and will continue to do so. As a 
result, it is sensible for our regulatory agencies to revisit outdated 
rules and modify them to better suit changing technologies and the 
changing realities of a more crowded, more advanced nation.
  Nevertheless, it is possible to go too far in trying to address these 
changing realities, and I believe that the FCC has gone too far in 
crafting some of these new media ownership rules. For instance, in 
allowing a broadcast network to own and operate local broadcast 
stations that reach, in total, up to forty-five percent of U.S. 
television households, instead of thirty-five percent under the old 
rules, the FCC has opened the door to vast conglomerates of news 
stations all feeding the same content to almost half the people in the 
country.
  We don't know how or even whether this would happen, but the 
potential for eliminating local content and reducing the diversity of 
opinions presented on television is simply too great.
  Likewise, the cross-ownership rules--the rules that determine whether 
a company can own both television and newspapers in the same market, or 
television and radio, and so on--raise some concerns for markets with 
just four of five television stations.
  In those small- to medium-sized markets, with between four and eight 
television stations, combinations are limited to one of the following:
  One daily newspaper, one television station, and up to half of the 
radio station limit under the local radio ownership rule for that 
market; one daily newspaper, and up to the radio station limit under 
the local radio ownership rule for that market, but no television 
stations; or two television stations, if permissible under the local 
television ownership rule, and up to the radio station limit under the 
local radio ownership rule for that market, but no daily newspapers.
  The old rule prohibited common ownership of a full-service broadcast 
station and a daily newspaper within the same city. In fact, according 
to the Congressional Research Service, when it adopted the rule in 
1975, the commission not only prohibited future combinations between 
newspapers and broadcast stations, but also required existing 
combinations in highly concentrated markets to divest holdings to come 
into compliance within 5 years. But under this new rule, one company 
could own the largest television station in town, the only newspaper, 
and half the radio stations. It is easy to see how, in these mid-sized 
markets, the amount of diverse content would rapidly diminish.
  On the other hand, I am not as concerned with the new rules 
pertaining to larger markets like Los Angeles. In a market with more 
than two dozen television stations and countless radio stations and 
newspapers, it is far less likely that one or two companies could come 
to control enough of the media market to truly stifle diversity of 
opinion or competition among content sources.
  So it is my hope that the FCC will go back and reexamine these new 
rules, keeping in mind the concerns of Congress and the American 
people, who have spoken out loud and clear about this issue. Fix what 
needs to be fixed, keep what is not broken. But come up with a new set 
of rules that makes sense for all Americans.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about the 
implications of too much media concentration. During the Senate 
consideration of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I voted for an 
amendment authored by Senator Dorgan to keep the Television National 
Broadcast Cap at 25 percent of television households that a broadcast 
company could reach through its local broadcast stations. I opposed 
increasing the cap to 35 percent as the 1996 bill allowed.
  In June the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted to adopt an 
order to relax current media ownership rules. I am a cosponsor of S.J. 
Res. 17, authored by Senator Dorgan, being considered by the Senate 
today to disapprove of the FCC ruling to lift media ownership 
restrictions. Loosening current media concentration restrictions would 
allow the media to become less responsive to local concerns and less 
likely to represent broad and diverse viewpoints. This is not in the 
public interest and should not be allowed.
  Today Members of the Senate can oppose these detrimental rule changes 
that will result in greater media concentration and less consumer 
choice by voting to disapprove them under the Congressional Review Act.
  I have supported the congressional review of rules dating back even 
before I came to the Senate. And I am proud and pleased that we have 
the opportunity to use it to stop this FCC rule today. This is exactly 
the situation in which the legislative review process is not only 
useful but necessary.
  When I first ran for the Senate in 1978, legislative review was 
actually a part of my platform. With all of the power executive 
agencies have we need to have a mechanism by where the politically 
accountable--that is the elected officials--can have a direct say in 
the rules and regulations issued by Executive Branch agencies. These 
agencies are supposed to be carrying out the will of Congress, and we 
have not only the right, but the responsibility to oversee their 
actions.
  I joined forces in the late 1970's and early 1980's with then 
Congressman Elliott Levitas in the House. In fact, along with Senator 
David Boren of Oklahoma, we got the legislative veto passed. But that 
law was held unconstitutional by the courts in the Chadha case because 
it allowed for a one house veto. The court ruled that legislation 
subject to the President's veto power is necessary to avoid violating 
the principle of separation of powers.
  We then fought to establish a congressional review process. It was 
with the bipartisan effort of Senators Harry Reid and Don Nickles 
almost 10 years ago, that we finally got legislative review enacted 
into law and I was proud to be part of that effort.
  And I'm glad to see that what many of us argued decades ago in 
support of this review process has proven to be true. This 
congressional review process is a two-edged sword. Some opponents 
argued it would be used only to limit

[[Page S11512]]

valuable social programs, but we proponents argued that it was neutral 
politically--that it could be just as useful to protect against an 
agency that is regulating too little as it could be to rein in an 
agency that is regulating too much, or as with the case of the FCC, 
regulating unwisely.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Federal 
Communications Commission, FCC, issued rules making changes to long-
standing limits on the types and amounts of media outlets that can be 
owned and controlled by a single company. These rule changes 
drastically increase the ability of a few companies to control access 
to information in this country. The rule changes undermine the public 
interest and do nothing to ensure diversity of viewpoints, 
``localism,'' coverage of events in local communities by people who are 
a part of that community, or to ensure that healthy competition exists 
amongst media outlets.
  The American people know these changes are not in the public 
interest, and that is why I have heard directly from more than 1,650 of 
my constituents urging Congress to overturn the FCC's actions.
  Specifically, the rule changes adopted by the FCC earlier this year 
would allow a single company to control television stations with access 
to almost half of the American broadcast audience. How that can be 
billed as increasing competition or diversity of viewpoint is a 
mystery. Given that these rules were written with only one public 
hearing and without opportunity for public comment, it is not 
surprising that they fail to reflect the public interest.
  It is important to recognize that overturning these rules is not just 
about preventing additional domination of the airwaves. It is about 
ensuring the survival of local newspapers that genuinely know and are a 
part of the community.
  The rule changes would allow the sole or dominant newspaper in a city 
to merge with the top broadcaster in 200 of the 210 media markets in 
the country! That would mean 98 percent of the American public could 
effectively lose an independent voice in their community. Already, 
since 1975, two thirds of independent newspaper owners have ceased to 
exist, leaving only 290 independent newspapers in a country of 292 
million people.
  If these rules are allowed to take effect, it will mean fewer 
reporters on the ground chasing stories in our local communities, and 
less local investigative journalism. It would make it possible for 
individual markets to be dominated by a single newspaper/TV 
conglomerate which could control well over half the news audience and 
two-thirds of the reporters in a given local market.
  Inevitably, the merging of broadcasters and newspapers reduces the 
number of voices in individual markets and threatens to place too much 
control over local news and information in the hands of too few 
companies. Repackaging and repeating stories produced in other venues 
is not the same as real reporting of local news.
  One of the most common refrains that we hear to justify this 
tremendous change is that new outlets for news and information are now 
available. While I firmly believe that we are only at the cusp of an 
information age that will drastically change how we receive 
information, it makes no difference if the new access points are 
controlled by fewer people.
  The reaction to these rules has been quick and sure. I have heard 
from over 1,650 of my constituents directly, an additional 10,000 
through the Move On petition. The House and the Senate Appropriations 
Committee have taken action to reverse the increase in the cap on 
broadcast audience in the appropriations process, and the Third Circuit 
Court of Appeals has temporarily halted implementation of these rules. 
But the clearest way to send a message to the FCC that these rules 
cannot stand is to pass this resolution disapproving the rule changes. 
We expect the FCC to be a watchdog not a lapdog.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution as a first step in 
reinvigorating competition and preserving local control in mass media.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to support the Senate resolution to 
overturn the Federal Communications Commission's, FCC, decision to 
relax our Nation's media concentration rules. That decision threatens 
our democracy by placing more power over what we see and hear in the 
hands of fewer big interests.
  The voices of those who oppose the FCC decision range from Bill 
Clinton to Bill Safire, from the National Rifle Association to the 
National Organization for Women. I am particularly disappointed with 
the manner in which the agency has ignored these voices. The FCC held 
only one public hearing on these rules. But commissioners and their 
staff met with just one firm lobbying on behalf of big media more than 
30 times.
  The agency received more than 700,000 letters opposing the relaxation 
of the rules and only a handful supporting that decision but failed to 
take that overwhelming public sentiment into consideration. I reject 
the FCC rule because the FCC ignored the people's concerns.
  Congress must send the agency a clear bipartisan message--the 
airwaves belong to the American people, not to you and not to a small 
group of media elites. The FCC must be forced to address the concerns 
of the American people. The people know that the FCC decision to relax 
our media ownership threatens democratic discourse and participation. 
It will allow massive media giants to grow--media giants that already 
use multiple media outlets to promote their views and overwhelmingly 
dominate public debate.
  The courts told the FCC to explain why the rules were justified. With 
the more than 700,000 public comments opposing relaxation of the rules, 
the agency had that justification. The American people understand that 
it cannot be in the public interest to further relax the rules that 
protect the public's access to multiple sources to information and 
media. My office alone has received 4600 letters and e-mails on the 
issue.
  The FCC is charged with protecting the public interest. In this case, 
I believe the commission has failed and Congress must act.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in June, the Federal Communications 
Commission, FCC, issued an order that modified its media ownership 
rules in accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The modified 
rules increased from 35 percent to 45 percent of households the cap 
governing broadcast network ownership. The new rules also make easier 
newspaper-broadcast cross ownership by largely lifting the ban 
prohibiting a newspaper from buying a TV or radio station in the same 
market.
  S. J. Res. 17 would overturn all aspects of the FCC ruling. I do not 
believe the FCC ruling is without flaw, but a blanket negation of the 
rule-making is not an appropriate response. Though I am not in favor of 
the increased cap governing broadcast network ownership, I do support 
the modified newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. I believe the 
relaxed cross ownership ruling encourages a concordant relationship 
between newspapers and television stations that will offer a higher 
standard of quality in news content and reporting. This, in turn, reaps 
innumerable benefits for communities across America. As I believe the 
value of the modified cross ownership ruling usurps the potential 
dangers of the increased cap governing broadcast network ownership, I 
cannot support S. J. Res. 17.
  To unequivocally vacate all aspects of the FCC ruling is to do a 
disservice to incalculable citizens across this country who will 
benefit from the modified newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. For 
the aforementioned reasons, I am voting ``no'' on S. J. Res. 17.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. In a strong democracy, a variety of views 
must be available to citizens. Protections are essential so that 
minority views can be heard. That was the vision of America's founders 
when they drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it has 
served the Nation well. Its principles are especially important today. 
Neither the broadcast industry nor anyone else is entitled to a 
monopoly over the dissemination of information in our society.
  The presence of a diversity of voices, each contributing to our 
national discourse, is essential for the functioning of our democratic 
society. And the best way to foster that diversity is through 
competition.

[[Page S11513]]

  Today, however, an increasingly serious problem is being caused by 
the buyouts of local broadcast stations by national media 
conglomerates. Competition suffers, and local issues of great 
importance to individual communities often go unheard.
  Many of us in Congress are deeply concerned that the remaining 
diversity of our media will be further be reduced by the Federal 
Communications Commission's recent decision to weaken media ownership 
rules. The new rules allow even greater media concentration, in spite 
of its adverse effect on competition, the diversity of views, and major 
national, State, and local priorities.
  I support Senator Dorgan's proposal to reject these rules, because 
they are not in the public interest, and would seriously weaken the 
protections in current law that prevent excessive concentration in the 
broadcast industry. The public has little to gain and a great deal to 
lose if we allow the FCC to slash the protections that serve them so 
well.
  Each weakening of restrictions on media ownership in recent years has 
been followed by a burst of new corporate consolidation. Mergers have 
sharply reduced the number of media companies and threaten to erode the 
diversity and competition that are so important to our Nation. The new 
rules will greatly increase this problem, by allowing fewer firms to 
control the flow of information--locally or nationally. It makes no 
sense for Congress to allow restrictions on the flow of information 
that is so important to our democracy in this information age.
  As a trustee of the Nation's public airwaves, the FCC has a 
responsibility to include the American public in its decision-making 
process. Yet the commission has largely ignored public comment and 
debate before it these sweeping changes in the nation's broadcasting 
rules.
  The commission agreed to one public hearing on the overall issue, and 
it refused to publicly disclose the rules before they were voted on. 
Such secrecy is unacceptable. What possible harm can come from public 
disclosure? The commission's ``notice and comment'' procedure is 
intended to allow an informed debate about these important issues of 
public policy, but in this case the agency used its procedures to keep 
the public in the dark.
  Even with incomplete information, the public reaction against the 
proposed changes has been unique in the history of the FCC. The 
commission received nearly three quarters of a million comments, and 
over 99.9 percent of them opposed the increase in media consolidation.
  As a result, a wide variety of organizations--including civil rights 
groups, churches, family values groups, and labor unions--have called 
on the FCC to reconsider the proposal. The National Rifle Association, 
the National Organization for Women, and many others expressed grave 
doubt about the wisdom of allowing greater consolidation. Nevertheless, 
the FCC approved the new rules.
  I urge my colleagues to send a clear message today to the commission 
and the public by nullifying these rules and reversing this misguided 
decision the commission to support the interest of media conglomerates 
and ignore the public interest.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a 
joint resolution, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to disapprove the 
Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003, rules designed to 
loosen restrictions on broadcast media ownership. It is the 
Commission's responsibility to ensure that media ownership rules serve 
our national goals of diversity, competition and localism. 
Unfortunately, the Commission's June 2, 2003, ruling fails to meet this 
standard.
  The resolution before us today would reverse the FCC's decision to 
change the national television ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 
percent, a decision that threatens local and independent voices in 
television. The television industry is undergoing rapid consolidation 
as a handful of national networks have acquired local stations across 
the country. I am concerned that when local stations are purchased by a 
national network, independent voices are lost in the media marketplace. 
Locally owned and operated stations are more likely to be responsive to 
local needs, interests and values than those stations owned and 
operated by national networks. Indeed many local stations are small 
businesses that drive innovative competition. A system of concentrated 
station ownership will trend toward nationalized programming aimed 
primarily at maximizing revenue with less concern for local interests 
and less room for competition.
  The resolution before us today will also reverse the FCC's decision 
to significantly loosen restrictions on cross-ownership of broadcast 
stations and newspapers within single markets. The cross-ownership rule 
is intended to increase or at least maintain the number of independent 
editorial voices in a community. This is especially important in 
smaller communities where citizens have fewer media operations covering 
local matters. While there is scant evidence that weakening this rule 
will result in significant economic benefit, leading academics and 
media experts have argued that doing so will dangerously reduce the 
venues for independent public discourse.
  I am also concerned with the process by which the FCC conducted these 
proceedings. This media ownership rulemaking is among the most 
important the FCC has undertaken, and it has garnered unprecedented 
public interest. Despite this, the Commission moved forward with 
dramatic rule changes without first taking public comment on a specific 
proposal. The Commission's outreach was simply insufficient. All 
parties concerned would have been better served if the Commission 
published a specific proposal and then allowed for a period of public 
comment before promulgating any rule changes.
  The Commission's first responsibility is to ensure diversity, 
competition and localism. The Commission has no responsibility to 
facilitate the business plans of the major networks or any other narrow 
economic interest. I strongly support the disapproval resolution before 
us today.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission's 
rules pertaining to media ownership have long served a vital function, 
helping to ensure a diversity of viewpoints in the media marketplace. 
The FCC's attempt to undo these important rules that have served us so 
well is misguided and harmful. The FCC's 35 percent cap on national 
audience reach has not only served to promote diversity, it also 
protects local programming, allowing it to reflect local values and 
preferences. If the cap is increased to 45 percent we can be sure that 
major networks will meet or exceed the new threshold, as some companies 
have done under the current standards, allowing for the acquisition of 
local stations while eliminating the unique choices that local 
programming can provide.
  I am also concerned about the FCC's effort to remove the newspaper/
broadcast cross-ownership limitations in 80 percent of all media 
markets. Currently, cross-ownership rules prevent a single corporation 
from becoming too powerful a voice in a given community. Lifting the 
cross-ownership ban will leave many communities reliant on one company 
to decide what they are able to see and hear.
  There are those who argue that the increase in the number of media 
outlets has obviated the need for such rules. The reality, of course, 
debunks this notion. While the number of media outlets has increased, 
ownership has become more concentrated. What's more, many of the 
largest new media outlets appear to be owned and controlled by the same 
conglomerates that control traditional media.
  In light of these facts, it seems illogical that the FCC would 
exacerbate a disturbing trend that is transforming the marketplace of 
ideas into little more than a corporate superstore. A recent, troubling 
tendency of the large media companies was highlighted in The Wall 
Street Journal this week in an article noting these companies' rapid 
acquisitions of cable channels to ``re-create the old programming 
oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era. The numbers tell the story. Of the 
top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by one of the big five media 
companies, according to The Wall Street Journal article of September 
15, 2003.

[[Page S11514]]

  The unsettling statistics extend to other communications branches as 
well. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the number of owners 
of commercial radio stations has declined by approximately 25 percent 
since 1996. Even more alarming is the fact that since 1995, ``the 
number of entities owning commercial TV stations has dropped by 40 
percent.''
  I welcome and strongly encourage the emergence and proliferation of 
new and different platforms for news and information. We can expect 
that more and more Americans will gain access to and will use these 
resources. In our democratic society, there still are good and sound 
reasons for encouraging and protecting the diversity of viewpoints 
available in more traditional media. The FCC--to which the American 
people have entrusted some of this responsibility--should be working to 
diversify, not homogenize, the news and information media available to 
the American public.
  I ask the Wall Street Journal article of September 15, 2003, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 15, 2003]

          How Media Giants Are Reassembling the Old Oligopoly

                           (By Martin Peers)

       Two years ago, Mattel Inc. gave CBS a choice. The network 
     had refused to broadcast the toymaker's movie ``Barbie in the 
     Nutcracker'' in prime time. So Mattel threatened to pull 
     millions of dollars of advertising from the Nickelodeon cable 
     channel--owned by CBS parent Viacom Inc.
       Viacom, which had spent a decade bulking up with 
     acquisitions, now wielded its new clout, according to people 
     familiar with the situation. If Mattel made good on its 
     threat, Viacom said, it would be blacklisted from advertising 
     on any Viacom property--a wide swath of media turf that also 
     includes MTV, VH-1, BET, a radio broadcasting empire and even 
     billboards. Mattel backed down, and the Barbie movie ended up 
     running during a less-desirable daytime period.
       Neither company will comment on the scrape, but Viacom says 
     Mattel remains a ``valued advertising partner.'' More 
     generally, President Mel Karmazin in an interview is blunt 
     about his company's strategy: ``You find it very difficult to 
     go to war with one piece of Viacom without going to war with 
     all of Viacom.''
       Viacom and its big media peers have been snapping up cable 
     channels because they're one of the few entertainment outlets 
     generating strong revenue growth these days. More broadly, 
     the media giants have discovered that owning both broadcast 
     and cable outlets provides powerful new leverage over 
     advertisers and cable and satellite-TV operators. The 
     goliaths are using this advantage to wring better fees out of 
     the operators that carry their channels and are pressuring 
     those operators into carrying new and untried channels. 
     They're also finding ways to coordinate promotions across 
     their different holdings.
       Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General 
     Electric Co. and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach 
     more than 50% of the prime-time TV audience through their 
     combined broadcast and cable outlets. The total rises to 80% 
     if you include the parents of newer networks--such as News 
     Corp.'s Fox and AOL Time Warner Inc.'s WB--and NBC's pending 
     acquisition of Vivendi Universal SA's cable assets, estimates 
     Tom Wolzien, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
       The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old 
     programming oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr. 
     Wolzien, a former executive at NBC. Of the top 25 cable 
     channels, 20 are now owned by one of the big five media 
     companies.
       The idea of owning broadcast networks as well as cable 
     channels is ``comfortable for people like ourselves,'' says 
     Bob Wright, chairman of NBC, which two weeks ago signed a 
     preliminary agreement to acquire Vivendi Universal's USA and 
     Sci Fi cable channels, along with the Universal film studio, 
     bolstering a stable of cable channels that includes 
     Bravo, MSNBC and CNBC.
       For the past several years, Viacom and other media 
     companies have pressed the Federal Communications Commission 
     to relax restriction on owning local TV station. One of their 
     main arguments: Their audience is shrinking as cable booms 
     and the TV audience fragments. The original three broadcast 
     networks now capture only 33.7% of the prime-time television 
     audience, down from 69.3% in 1985-86. Cable now boasts a 
     49.3% share, compared with 7.5% in the mid-'80s, according to 
     a Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau analysis of data from 
     Nielsen Media Research.
       But with the wave of consolidation and the increased reach 
     of the media giants, some cable systems are fighting to keep 
     restrictions on TV-station ownership in place. Cox 
     Enterprises, parent of the fourth-biggest cable operator, Cox 
     Communications, has argued that the big broadcasters are 
     abusing protections granted them under federal law. The 
     broadcasters, Cox argues, are using those protections to 
     charge cable systems more for their cable channels. Cox and 
     others have complained to the FCC that media companies make 
     them accept less-popular cable channels in exchange for 
     carrying their broadcast networks.
       Media companies counter that their consolidation only puts 
     them on a level playing field with cable operators, who are 
     themselves merging into giants. Comcast Corp.'s acquisition 
     of AT&T Corp.'s cable division last year gave it a reach of 
     more than 21 million homes, for instance, almost 30% of homes 
     served by cable. Comcast has already begun to tell cable 
     channels it wants to save money on what it pays for 
     programming, setting the scene for increasingly contentious 
     negotiations with big media companies.
       ``There has been so much consolidation'' among the 
     distributors that ``unless you are equally big . . . you risk 
     a situation where you can be marginalized,'' says Viacom 
     President Karmazin.


                          following the money

       In buying up cable channels, the media conglomerates are 
     simply following the money. The music business is shrinking 
     rapidly as piracy eats into sales. Universal Music Group, the 
     world's biggest, is now thought to be valued at $5 billion to 
     $6 billion, less than half what it was a few years ago. The 
     film business is volatile, with a quarter's performance 
     dependent on whether movies bomb or not. The publishing 
     business is steady but grows at a slow pace. Broadcast 
     television's audience is shrinking, and its business model is 
     entirely dependent on advertising revenue, a cyclical 
     business.
       Cable channels are gushing cash because they generate 
     revenue from two sources--subscriptions and advertising. The 
     subscriptions don't come directly from customers, but through 
     cable-TV services, which operate the vast array of wires and 
     pipelines connected to homes, and through satellite-TV 
     services that beam the signal. For the right to carry the 
     programming on their systems, these cable-operating companies 
     pay a range of monthly fees, from 26 cents a subscriber for 
     VH-1 to more than $2 for ESPN. These fees, for the most part, 
     increase every year, providing a steadily rising annuity for 
     the channel owners.
       As cable viewership has increased, so has advertising. 
     Since 1980, cable-channel ad revenue has risen from 
     practically nothing to $10.8 billion in 2002, according to 
     the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau. Some channels, 
     meanwhile, are cashing in on strong brand names. Nickelodeon, 
     for one, is a merchandising powerhouse, with products 
     including Dora the Explorer backpacks and SpongeBob 
     SquarePants videogames.
       The result has been an explosion in profits. MTV earned 
     just $54 million in 1989, estimates Kagan World Media, but is 
     expected to make more than 10 times that much this year. QVC, 
     the home shopping channel, generates so much money that 
     Liberty Media recently agreed to buy full ownership of the 
     channel at a value of about $14 billion--the same value put 
     on all of Vivendi Universal's film and TV assets.
       Cable channels' surging profits have transformed the bottom 
     lines of their parent companies. E.W. Scripps Co., the 125-
     year-old Cincinnati newspaper publisher and TV-station owner, 
     now relies on its cable division for much of its profit 
     growth. In 1994, Scripps launched the Home and Garden channel 
     on the initiative of a TV executive, Ken Lowe, amid 
     widespread skepticism. One Scripps newspaper publisher 
     approached Mr. Lowe at the time to complain ``a lot of the 
     cash that I'm making here is being shipped to you . . . You 
     better know what you're doing,'' Mr. Lowe recalls.
       Nine years later, HGTV has become one of the most popular 
     cable channels with shows such as ``Design on a Dime'' and 
     ``House Hunters.'' Scripps added a controlling stake to the 
     Food Network in 1997. In the second quarter of this year, the 
     impact of cable channels, including the Home and Garden 
     channel and the Food Network, was clear; Newspaper and 
     broadcast-TV profits both fell, while cable-channel profit 
     jumped 70%, helping Scripps's net profit more than double. 
     Scripps stock is trading near its 52-week high of $90.65, up 
     almost 30% for the past 12 months.
       The publisher who had complained about the cable-channel 
     investment recently thanked Mr. Lowe, now Scripps's CEO, 
     noting that the rise in Scripps's stock price would put his 
     three children through college, Mr. Lowe says.
       Since 1990, almost half of the top 50 cable channels have 
     changed hands. Among the big deals: Disney's $19 billion 
     acquisition of ESPN's parent, Capital Cities/ABC, and Time 
     Warner's $6.7 billion purchase of CNN parent Turner 
     Broadcasting, both negotiated in the summer of 1995. In 2001, 
     Disney bought the Family channel from News Corp. for $5.2 
     billion.
       Last year, NBC bought Bravo for $1.3 billion, CBS, owner of 
     the Nashville Network (now Spike TV) and Country Music 
     Television, itself was gobbled up in 2000 by MTV's longtime 
     parent, Viacom. Viacom has since added channels such as BET 
     and Comedy Central.
       Mr. Karmazin recently boasted to investors that the 
     company's broadcast and cable outlets reach 26% of the 
     nation's viewers in prime time, a significantly bigger share 
     than any other company. Having such a big market share is 
     ``real important for lots of reasons, in terms of dealing 
     with advertisers and our cable partners,'' he told investors.

[[Page S11515]]

       Ad sales and marketing executives from the CBS and MTV 
     Networks divisions meet regularly to share information and 
     plot cross-promotional opportunities. In January 2001, MTV 
     staged the halftime show for the Super Bowl, which was 
     broadcast on CBS, featuring performances from Aerosmith and 
     Britney Spears.
       Last fall, CBS helped stem a slide in young women viewers 
     of its reality blockbuster series ``Survivor'' with a 
     documentary on the series that ran repeatedly on MTV before 
     the new season of Survivor premiered. The premiere episode of 
     ``Survivor'' on CBS saw a 25% jump in its young female 
     audience, says George Schweitzer, executive vice president of 
     marketing for CBS. CBS promoted its sitcom ``King of Queens'' 
     through a special last Friday on Viacom's Comedy Central 
     cable channel.


                         protecting one another

       The broadcast and cable sides of Viacom generally don't try 
     to sell ads jointly, but the common ownership allows them to 
     protect each other's flanks. At a presentation to advertisers 
     last spring, MTV executives compared the audience reach for 
     most of MTV Networks with ABC, NBC, Fox and WB--but CBS's 
     figures weren't included in the breakdown, so that MTV didn't 
     siphon ads from its corporate cousin.
       Meanwhile, Disney's ownership of both ABC and ESPN allows 
     it to spread out the cost of expensive sports packages such 
     as its deals with the National Football League and the 
     National Basketball Association. ABC Sports is, in fact, 
     overseen by the same executive who runs ESPN, George 
     Bodenheimer, and the two operations regularly promote each 
     other's programming and share talent.
       Joint ownership of cable and broadcast is particularly 
     valuable in negotiations with cable operators. A 1992 law 
     allows broadcasters to regularly renegotiate the price for 
     carrying TV stations' signal on cable. While broadcasters 
     could charge a cash fee, they usually offer the broadcast 
     stations free in exchange for carrying a new cable channel 
     they've launched. Few viewers would subscribe to cable if 
     ABC, CBS or NBC weren't on the channel line-up, so the cable 
     operators have little leverage.
       The strategy lets broadcasters add more cable channels, 
     including many narrowly focused networks. Since 1993, big 
     media companies have launched at least 35 new cable channels 
     by bartering the right to carry their broadcast stations, 
     estimates George Callard, an attorney with Cinnamon Mueller, 
     a law firm that is counsel to the American Cable Association.
       Using such a strategy, cable operators say, Disney has 
     shoehorned its Soapnet cable channel, which features reruns 
     of soaps such as ``General Hospital,'' into services reaching 
     33 million homes. Disney argues that fewer than half of those 
     homes have the channel as a result of a barter arrangement.
       Cox Enterprises complained in a filing with the FCC in 
     January that Cox Communications has to agree to carry Soapnet 
     nationally in exchange for the right to offer ABC stations in 
     just a few of its markets. A Disney spokesman says Cox is a 
     ``savvy negotiator'' that ``wouldn't have signed the deal 
     unless they found value in it.''
       Catalina Cable, a cable-TV operator on Catalina Island off 
     the California coast, has only 1,449 customers. Ralph Morrow, 
     Catalina's owner, says he was asked to carry Soapnet when he 
     tried to renew his right to carry a Disney ABC affiliate for 
     the beginning of 2000. He says he suggested paying cash for 
     ABC instead. Disney's response was that the cash fee for ABC 
     would be ``really high,'' he says. ``They made it clear to 
     me'' that he didn't have that option ``at a reasonable 
     price.'' A Disney spokesman says Mr. Morrow mischaracterized 
     its offer, noting that Disney offers operators ``multiple 
     options, including a stand-alone cash offer which we believe 
     to be a fair offer and fair value.''
       Mr. Morrow, who says he doesn't see the need for a soap-
     opera channel, now pays Disney 11 cents a subscriber for 
     Soapnet. Disney responds that surveys of viewers have shown 
     Soapnet to be popular. The channel drew 97,000 viewers in 
     July and August, according to Nielsen. In the same period, 
     HGTV--which is available in about two and a half times as 
     many homes--averaged 457,000 viewers.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
resolution. I say this as someone who is unhappy with the core aspects 
of the FCC's ruling. I disagree with the move to lift the 35 percent 
national television viewership cap. I believe the 35 percent ceiling 
has served us well in preserving the goals of competition, localism, 
and diversity.
  However, the decision was extremely comprehensive and complicated and 
included some changes which I do favor. For example, I strongly support 
the Commission's approach to ease the ill-advised restrictions on 
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. The empirical data from the 
newspaper/broadcast station combinations that were grandfathered in 
shows that this has allowed for a greater diversity of voices.
  Miles City in my home State of Montana provides a vivid example. 
KATL-AM and the Miles City Star are one such operation. Each operates 
autonomously and KATL provides valuable local news coverage to the 
area. Through the pooling of resources, smaller stations which might 
not be viable are able to maintain their economic health and continue 
to serve the local community.
  Again, I reiterate my strong opposition to the FCC's decision to lift 
the national broadcast ownership cap to 45 percent from 35 percent. If 
the major networks are allowed to own even more of their affiliate 
stations, local concerns will have less of a role in shaping what 
programming makes it on the air.
  Affiliate stations that are independently owned may choose, from time 
to time, to preempt network programming that they believe does not 
conform to the mores of their local communities. That is localism. I 
guarantee that the local views of the citizens of Butte, MT differ from 
those of the citizens in New York City. Independently owned stations 
are answerable only to local demands. So, if the station owners feel 
certain programming doesn't reflect their local community values, they 
keep it off the air.
  Not only will lifting the cap mean that stations are less likely to 
preempt programming, but it also means that there will be less local 
input into the composition of network schedules. As the networks own 
more and more of their affiliates, the independently owned affiliates 
will lose negotiating leverage. In short, you'll see programming 
decisions made more and more in Los Angeles and New York, instead of in 
local markets.
  We already raised the national television cap in 1996 from 25 percent 
to 35 percent. It would be premature to raise it again so soon.
  I fully understand the sentiment that lead to this resolution. I 
agree with the concerns of many of my colleagues, particularly on the 
television cap. However, this is not the way to go about it.
  The Commerce Committee upon which I serve--has moved to protect the 
national broadcast cap. I also serve on the Appropriations Committee 
and the Commerce, Justice, State bill for this year includes a measure 
to protect the 35 percent cap. I support these moves, which target 
individual rule changes, rather than the resolution being considered 
today, which rolls back the entire decision.
  Again, I emphasize I am not happy with the FCC ruling. But I don't 
think the answer is to wipe out every aspect of the FCC ruling with one 
single vote. If we are going to get it right, we need to look at each 
regulation and each issue individually. Let's not throw out the baby 
with the bathwater.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I control the time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield to 
me?
  Mr. McCAIN. We have been going back and forth, and I will yield to 
the other side and then yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S.J. 
Res. 17, the joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the 
Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media 
ownership.
  I reviewed the press release the FCC issued on June 2 to announce its 
changes to the ownership rules. The press release was entitled, ``FCC 
Sets Limits on Media Concentration.'' The problem with that press 
release was that the FCC did not set limits; it virtually abolished 
them. A majority of the FCC commissioners capitulated to an industry 
they no longer hold at arms' length.
  I say capitulated because I read that FCC commissioners and other 
agency officials have taken more than 2,500 trips valued at $2.8 
million since 1995, paid for by the industry the FCC is supposed to 
regulate. How ``arm's length'' is that?
  As an aside, I am heartened that the FCC reauthorization bill the 
Commerce Committee report puts an end to industry-sponsored travel for 
FCC Commissioners and staff.

[[Page S11516]]

  With respect to the ownership rules, it was regrettable that FCC 
Chairman Michael Powell saw fit to hold one and only one public hearing 
on the subject.
  And it was regrettable that Chairman Powell appeared to be willing to 
talk with industry officials and the press about the proposed rule 
changes, but not with the Commerce Committee, until the rule was 
issued.
  It was regrettable that the FCC officials went to great lengths to 
point out that the agency received nearly one million comments and 
constituent post cards on the rule changes, and then chose to disregard 
the vast majority of them.
  It is regrettable that the so-called ``diversity index'' cited as 
justification for further deregulation cannot be used in a petition to 
determine if companies are violating ownership limits.
  It is particularly regrettable that three of the five Commissioners 
apparently feel that news is just another commodity, like shoes or 
cars.
  News is not just another commodity, except to the media barons who 
stand to benefit most from the FCC rule changes.
  Here is what Lowry Mays, the founder and CEO of Clear Channel, had to 
say in Fortune magazine recently:

       We're not in the business of providing news and information 
     . . . We're simply in the business of selling our customers 
     products.

  Remember, this is the man whose company owns over 1,200 radio 
stations with some 110 million listeners spread across all 50 States 
and the District of Columbia.
  So much for the public interest.
  Over the years, Congress established media ownership rules to ensure 
that the public would have access to a wide range of news, information, 
programming, and political perspectives. Over the years, the courts 
have repeatedly recognized the public interest goals of diversity, 
competition, and localism.
  Consolidating media ownership means that a few large corporations can 
exercise considerable control over the news.
  Is it really in the public interest to make it easier for a few 
companies to dominate the airwaves and determine what news the American 
people will, or will not hear?
  As the distinguished jurist Learned Hand remarked in 1942, ``The hand 
that rules the press, the radio, the screen, and the far-spread 
magazine rules the country.''
  I am the only member of the Commerce Committee from the New York 
metropolitan area. In my back yard, News Corp. already owns two VHF 
broadcast stations, a daily newspaper, a broadcast network, a movie 
studio, a satellite service, and four cable networks. Under the new 
rules the FCC issued, News Corp. will be able to add another TV station 
and own a total of eight radio stations. And do not forget: News Corp. 
is gobbling up DirecTV.
  That is not diversity. That is not ``fair and balanced.''
  At a Commerce Committee hearing on media ownership, Mel Karmazin of 
Viacom argued that ``Americans are bombarded with media choices via 
technology never dreamed of even a decade ago, much less 60 years 
ago.''
  That is true, but misleading. Who owns these media? Viacom owns CBS 
and UPN; 35 television stations that reach 40 percent of the national 
viewing audience; Paramount Studios; and cable channels such as VH1, 
MTV, BET, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and Showtime.
  Viacom, through Infinity Broadcasting, also owns 185 radio stations 
and has substantial ownership interests in several Internet properties, 
including CBS.com and CBSMarketwatch.com. Viacom even owns Blockbuster, 
so it has a significant stake in video and DVD rentals.
  It should be self-evident that consolidating media ownership would 
make it possible for a few large corporations to exercise considerable 
control over the news.
  Media giants also exert enormous control over advertisers. I received 
a letter last month from Neil Faber, president of NexGen Media, a 
company that specializes in national and spot broadcasting, print, and 
outdoor media buys. He wrote:

       For decades I have been deeply concerned with this 
     direction of increasing concentration of ownership. This 
     concentration limits consumer choice and results in higher 
     advertising rates that, in all probability, have been passed 
     on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for products 
     or services and tends to constrain diversity of viewpoints.

  New York Times columnist William Safire summed up the problem and 
what is at stake in a May 22 column. He wrote:

       The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment comes via 
     broadcast and print. Putting those outlets in fewer and 
     bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many. . . The 
     concentration of power--political, corporate, media, 
     cultural--should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion 
     of power through local control, thereby encouraging 
     individual participation, is the essence of federalism and 
     the greatest expression of democracy.

  In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the FCC to 
conduct a biennial review of the rule changes the Act contained. Given 
the complexity of the issue, a biennial review was overly ambitious.
  Be that as it may, Chairman Powell said during the biennial review 
that led up to the rule changes proposed in June, ``Getting it right is 
more important than just getting it done.'' He said that, but then he 
did the opposite. The FCC got it done, but did not get it right.
  Getting it right means serving the public interest, not increasing 
ownership concentration and boosting profitability for a few companies' 
share-holders.
  I hope the Senate will pass this joint resolution to send a strong, 
unequivocal message to the FCC that it got it wrong on June 2.
  I ask Unanimous Consent that the letter I received from Neil Faber 
and the May 22 op-ed by William Safire that appeared in the New York 
Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           NexGen Media Worldwide,


                                                 Incorporated,

                                                   August 8, 2003.
     Senator Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am the founder, President, and 
     Chief Executive Officer of NexGen Media Worldwide Inc., a 
     media company that specializes in the planning and execution 
     of media buys across virtually every medium, including 
     national and spot broadcasting, print, and outdoor. We have 
     been in business almost twenty-five years.
       As both a media and advertising professional, as an Adjunct 
     Professor of Marketing at NYU for fifteen years, and as a 
     concerned citizen of the U.S. and the State of New Jersey, I 
     am responding to the recent article in The New York Times by 
     Michael K. Powell, Chairman of the Federal Communications 
     Commission on the subject of the FCC's decision that would 
     allow one company to own broadcast stations reaching up to 
     45% of the national market, an increase from the current cap 
     of 35%.
       For decades, I have been deeply concerned with this 
     direction of increasing concentration of ownership. This 
     concentration limits consumer choice and results in higher 
     advertising rates that, in all probability, have been passed 
     on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for products 
     or services and tends to constrain diversity of viewpoints.
       It is certainly true that the U.S. has a diverse media 
     marketplace. It is in the spirit of maintaining this 
     diversity that we should avoid concentration of media in the 
     hands of the few. In the past, each local radio station in 
     most markets, as an example, was primarily run by separate 
     entities. While the number of stations is greater, the 
     ownership is by fewer companies. So, this results in fewer 
     independent sources of information (i.e., news, weather, 
     traffic), entertainment, and fewer diverse editorial 
     viewpoints. When one looks at television, the Television 
     Bureau of Advertising shows that from 1980 to the present, 
     the number of television stations available per home grew 8 
     fold. Yet, the average number of television stations that 
     viewers watch weekly increased by only 2\1/2\ times. So, 
     while station options have grown dramatically over this 
     period, relatively speaking, why did the number of stations 
     viewed increase at a dramatically disproportionately lower 
     rate? These facts strongly suggest that there should be more 
     independent outlets, more diversity, with greater freedom of 
     programming choices.
       It is logical that even if each station in a corporate 
     structure were totally independently run, at some place in 
     this corporate hierarchy the general manager of each station 
     still reports to one or more top level corporate executives 
     whose major responsibilities include providing ``guidance'' 
     to maximize the corporation's profits. This reality further 
     supports the contention that concentration of ownership also 
     tends to inflate advertising prices and limit editorial 
     viewpoints.
       Mr. Powell writes that the major networks own a small 
     percentage of all television stations. The fact is, however, 
     that the stations owned by the networks include those in the 
     major markets that represent the lion's share of the audience 
     in both the local markets and nationally. Here, too, 
     concentration

[[Page S11517]]

     of ownership presents a potential risk to independent and 
     diverse editorials and creates the framework for higher 
     advertising rates. This is analogous to what occurred in this 
     year's Network Television ``upfront'' marketplace in which 
     advertising prices skyrocketed in the area of approximately 
     15% to 20% despite an arguably weak economy. It is 
     interesting to note that the advertising dollars deployed for 
     the upfront were concentrated with just a few mega-media 
     buying services accounting for more than 75% of the 
     advertising spent with the networks.
       As another example of how concentration of ownership can 
     adversely affect the capacity to effectively negotiate, look 
     at sports programming. It is true, as Mr. Powell states, that 
     many top sports programs have moved to cable and satellite. 
     But, the large media giants also own these outlets, i.e., 
     more concentration. So when negotiating with these cable 
     companies, e.g., advertisers are, in reality, negotiating 
     with the same few media giants who control them.
       We live in a free society. Limiting ownership and 
     concentrating media power cuts against the grain of free 
     society choice that is indigenous to our democracy. 
     Competition allows for choice and the ability to have greater 
     choice benefits both consumers and the advertising community. 
     This country needs to move towards more independent stations 
     in the future rather than continuing to concentrate media 
     ownership in the hands of the few. It is not whether we 
     should specifically increase the cap from 25% to 45%, it is 
     the direction to more concentration that needs to be 
     reversed.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Neil Faber,
     President.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, May 22, 2003]

                          The Great Media Gulp

                          (By William Safire)

       The future formation of American public opinion has fallen 
     into the lap of an ambitious 36-year-old lawyer whose name 
     you never heard. On June 2, after deliberations conducted 
     behind closed doors, he will decide the fate of media large 
     and small, print and broadcast. No other decision made in 
     Washington will more directly affect how you will be 
     informed, persuaded and entertained.
       His name is Kevin Martin. He and his wife, Catherine, now 
     Vice President Dick Cheney's public affairs adviser, are the 
     most puissant young ``power couple'' in the capital. He is 
     one of three Republican members of the five-person Federal 
     Communications Commission, and because he recently broke 
     ranks with his chairman, Michael Powell (Colin's son), on a 
     telecom controversy, this engaging North Carolinian has 
     become the swing vote on the power play that has media moguls 
     salivating.
       The F.C.C. proposal remains officially secret to avoid 
     public comment but has forced into the open by the two 
     commission Democrats. It would end the ban in most cities on 
     cross-ownership of television stations and newspapers, 
     allowing such companies as The New York Times, The Washington 
     Post and The Chicago Tribune to gobble up ever more 
     electronic outlets. It would permit Viacom, Disney and AOL 
     Time Warner to control TV stations with nearly half the 
     national audience. In the largest cities, it would allow 
     owners of ``only'' two TV stations to buy a third.
       We've already seen what happened when the F.C.C. allowed 
     the monopolization of local radio: today three companies own 
     half the stations in America, delivering a homogenized 
     product that neglects local news coverage and dictates music 
     sales.
       And the F.C.C. has abdicated enforcement of the ``public 
     interest'' requirement in issuing licenses. Time was, 
     broadcasters had to regularly reapply and show public-
     interest programming to earn continuance; now they mail the 
     F.C.C. a postcard every eight years that nobody reads.
       Ah, but aren't viewers and readers now blessed with a whole 
     new world of hot competition through cable and the Internet? 
     That's the shucks-we're-no-monopolists line that Rupert 
     Murdoch will take today in testimony before the pussycats of 
     John McCain's Senate Commerce Committee.
       The answer is no. Many artists, consumers, musicians and 
     journalists know that such protestations of cable and 
     internet competition by the huge dominators of content and 
     communication are malarkey. The overwhelming amount of news 
     and entertainment comes via broadcast and print. Putting 
     those outlets in fewer and bigger hands profits the few at 
     the cost of the many.
       Does that sound un-conservative? Not to me. The 
     concentration of power--political corporation, media, 
     cultural--should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion 
     of power through local control, thereby encouraging 
     individual participation, is the essence of federalism and 
     the greatest expression of democracy.
       Why do we have more channels but fewer real choices today? 
     Because the ownership of our means of communication is 
     shrinking. Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals 
     than they realize resent the loss of local control and 
     community identity.
       We opponents of megamergers and cross-ownership are 
     afflicted with what sociologists call ``pluralistic 
     ignorance.'' Libertarians pop off from what we assume to be 
     the fringes of the left and right wings, but not yet realize 
     that we outnumber the exponents of the new collective 
     efficiency.
       That's why I march uncomfortably alongside CodePink Women 
     for Peach and the National Rifle Association, between liberal 
     Olympia Snowe and conservative Ted Stevens under the banner 
     of ``localism, competition and diversity of views.'' That's 
     why, too, we resent the conflicted refusal of most networks, 
     stations and their putative purchasers to report fully and in 
     prime time on their owners's power grab scheduled for June 2.
       Most broadcasters of news act only on behalf of the 
     powerful broadcast lobby? Are they not obligated, in the 
     long-forgotten, ``public interest,'' to call to the attention 
     of viewers and readers the arrogance of a regulatory 
     commission that will not hold extended public hearings on the 
     most controversial decision in its history?
       So much of our lives should not be in the hands of one 
     swing-vote commissioner. Let's debate this out in the open, 
     take polls, get the president on the record and turn up the 
     heat.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote no on this 
resolution. By using the Congressional Review Act, which I worked on 
and helped pass with my colleague and friend Senator Reid from Nevada, 
we would totally throw out the entire FCC regulation. Some people 
disagree with parts of the regulation, but we would be throwing out the 
entire regulation.
  The Senator from Arizona said let's do this the old-fashioned way. 
Let's have hearings and mark up a bill so there is a bill that is going 
through the authorizing committee and there is also some language going 
through the Appropriations Committee. Maybe those are better and more 
appropriate vehicles than the Congressional Review Act, which rejects 
the entire regulation.
  What about the cross ownership rules? Cross-ownership rules say if 
one has a newspaper, they cannot own a TV station, or vice versa. Well, 
unless they were grandfathered years ago, they could, but if they are 
new in the business, they cannot own both. The ban on cross ownership 
was modified on sound reasoning and solid evidence. The antiquated ban 
should not be reinstated.
  My colleague from Nevada, who is now presiding, said things have 
changed. We now have thousands of radio stations. We have lots of 
opportunities. We have new vehicles. We have the internet. We have 
cable. We have lots of opportunities for people to get their news from 
a variety of sources. If we throw out these rules, we are almost saying 
we want to live by and maintain those old rules, which really are 
archaic and do not work.
  This is too Draconian of a measure, to throw out the regs in their 
entirety. I urge our colleagues to vote no on the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time is remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Republican side, 3 minutes 44 seconds. 
On the Democratic side, there are 10 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I do not view this issue as one 
that is driven by ideological bias, but it is one which I think 
deserves a great deal more consideration.
  Again, I urge my colleagues, as busy and as crowded as our calendar 
is, to bring up S. 1046 which has been reported out and is on the 
calendar. That would give us time to fully debate and amend these very 
complex and difficult issues. Therefore, I oppose the passage of CRA.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I have great respect for those who disagree with the position that I, 
Senator Lott, and many others have taken on this issue, but the 
resolution of disapproval, which is part of the Congressional Review 
Act, is, in effect, a legislative veto. It is perfectly appropriate to 
use it in this circumstance.
  I will talk a little bit about why this bipartisan resolution is 
important. First, it is acknowledged by everyone that we have had 
galloping concentration in the broadcast industry in recent years. One 
company now owns

[[Page S11518]]

well over 1,200 radio stations. The same is happening in television. I 
do not happen to think big is always bad but I think the FCC's new 
rules will just hasten the day when we have fewer and fewer companies 
owning virtually all of the broadcast properties in this country.
  So if one thinks that what the American people see, read, and hear 
should be controlled by fewer and fewer people, then they would like 
the FCC rules and they would want to oppose this resolution of 
disapproval. But if they believe in localism, diversity, and 
competition, which are the hallmarks of the reason we provide free 
licenses and the free use of the airwaves to companies by which they 
profit, in which we say to them they have responsibilities attached to 
this license, localism, diversity, competition, if you believe those 
enhance this country, enhance local areas or communities or counties or 
States, then you are going to want to support this resolution of 
disapproval.

  A lot of our folks think the FCC has written rules that fundamentally 
weaken our democracy. Our democracy is nourished by the free flow of 
information, by localism, by competition. The fact is, three-quarters 
of a million people sent their comments to the FCC saying: Don't do 
this. It ranges from the National Rifle Association, National 
Organization for Women, Walter Cronkite, Jesse Helms. This is a broad-
based group of American people who believe very strongly that what the 
FCC has done is wrong.
  The most dramatic rule changes in the history of broadcasting have 
been embarked upon by the FCC with one hearing in Richmond, VA. They 
concocted this rule that said: Oh, by the way, here is what we think 
should happen. We believe it is all right, in the largest city in this 
country, for one company to own the dominant newspaper, three 
television stations, eight radio stations, and the cable company. And 
the same company can do that in the largest city, the next largest 
city, the next largest city, the next largest city.
  It is not all right. We know better than that. Let me describe a 
little of what is happening with this concentration. Perhaps you are 
driving down the street in Salt Lake City listening to your car radio, 
tuning the dial until you find a radio station you happen to enjoy, one 
with good music, someone with a sonorous voice saying: Good morning in 
Salt Lake City. It's sunny here. What a beautiful day outside. The sky 
is blue.
  And you think what a great announcer they have in Salt Lake City 
when, in fact, that person may be broadcasting from a basement 
broadcast booth in Baltimore, MD. It is called voice track. It is 
called let's pretend. Let's pretend someone is broadcasting locally, 
but instead that person is using the Internet information to say it is 
sunny here in Salt Lake City, trying to make folks in Salt Lake City 
believe they are broadcasting in Salt Lake City. ``Voice tracking''--
remember that term.
  Central casting--it is the same approach in television. You like 
that? You just take localism, take local interest out of broadcasting 
and pretend it is local. If localism is unimportant, why do they even 
have to pretend?
  What about turning on your television set seeing people eating 
maggots? Yes, you can see that on television. Maybe you don't like 
seeing people eating maggots. Maybe you think seeing people eat a 
cupful of maggots shoved in front of them--maybe you think that ought 
not be shown in our community.
  So you call the broadcaster, and you say I am going to complain about 
this programming. How did you do this? Why would you show a program in 
which people eat maggots?
  And the broadcaster writes back--this happens to be a July 25 letter. 
I won't use names:

       We received your letter dated June 30, 2003, regarding the 
     content of the . . . show. . . .
       We forwarded your letter to the . . . Network. The Network, 
     not [us], decides what shows go on the air here for the . . . 
     Owned and Operated Television Stations.

  The network likes maggots. It comes to your hometown and you don't 
have a choice, nor would a local broadcaster, and certainly not 
affiliates, stations owned by the broadcaster. They are going to 
broadcast it.
  What has happened to localism? Dead? Wounded? Bleeding? If the FCC 
has its way with this rule, it will be gone, just plain gone.
  Is there a reason for us to be concerned? I think so. There is a 
broad, bipartisan group of interests in the Senate using the 
legislative veto to say let's say to the FCC: What you have done is 
wrong.
  Let me read a letter from our distinguished former colleague, Jesse 
Helms, because, as always, he puts it very succinctly.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 13 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Jesse Helms wrote a letter to my colleague, Trent Lott.

       Dear Trent:
       Thank you for your leadership in trying to undo the 
     disaster created by the Federal Communications Commission's 
     new media ownership rules. These rules will benefit huge 
     conglomerates and no one else.

  Let me point out, Senator Helms is one of the few people who served 
in this Senate who came from a broadcast background.

       Sometimes I think people in Washington, particularly at the 
     Commission, have forgotten that the FCC role is to preserve 
     localism, diversity, and competition. In no way are those 
     criteria supported by the recent FCC ruling. If the 
     commission fails, as it has, then Congress must step in. You 
     and Senator Dorgan have done that. I can think of no reason 
     to allow fewer companies to own more and more of the media. 
     Media ownership is a bipartisan issue that commands a close 
     review by Democrats and Republicans.
       When your resolution comes to the Senate floor, I'll be 
     cheering for 51 votes.

  It is signed by Jesse Helms, former U.S. Senator.
  In this morning's newspaper, the FCC chairman, Mr. Powell, makes 
comments about what we are doing here today. I happen to like Chairman 
Powell. Personally, I think he is a good person. We have had a good 
relationship. I think he has made a horrible mistake. His leadership on 
this issue at the Federal Communications Commission, as I have said 
previously, has led the Commission to cave in as quickly and as 
completely to the special interests as anything I have ever seen.

  Mr. Powell says ``the move in the Senate today'' referring to this 
move ``is bordering on the absurd.''
  I am sorry. There is nothing at all absurd about the Senate taking 
direct aim at a rule by a Federal regulatory agency that is 
wrongheaded, and saying we are going to veto this rule. There is 
nothing absurd about that at all.
  This Congress has the right under this legislation to do it. This has 
been rarely used. It is the second occasion in which the Senate has 
used this. We would only do it when a regulatory agency, issuing 
regulations, has so starkly decided to misrepresent what is the public 
interest.
  The FCC is a regulatory body. One would expect them to wear striped 
shirts and have a whistle and blow the whistle when it is needed on 
behalf of the public interest, to stand up for the public interest. But 
when regulatory agencies refuse to stand for the public interest, then 
we must take action.
  My colleague, Senator McCain, talks about S. 1046. I am a cosponsor 
of that legislation. I support it very strongly. I hope the Senate will 
pass that as well. I will only observe that this resolution of 
disapproval will run into some whitewater rapids when it comes to the 
House. I understand that. So, too, would S. 1046 if it gets to the 
House of Representatives.
  The fact is, we ought to in every conceivable way avoid the problems 
that will come from these rules. My colleagues and others have talked 
about the problem of growing concentration in the media. It is getting 
worse, not better. The worst possible result, in my judgment, would be 
to say let's just let the FCC rules go into effect.
  A Federal circuit court has already issued a stay. They understand 
that the American people were not given the opportunity in the hearing, 
the one hearing that existed in Richmond, VA. The case has not been 
made for this FCC rule. So we have a stay at the Federal court.
  A reasonable step and a thoughtful step on behalf of this Senate is 
to stand up this morning for the public interest and say to the FCC: 
You had a responsibility and you failed. We have every right under the 
Congressional Review

[[Page S11519]]

Act to enact, this morning, a resolution of disapproval. I hope 
sufficient numbers of my colleagues will join me, will join Senator 
Lott, and others, in a strong bipartisan resolution to say we don't 
like what the FCC has done. We think it is not at all in support of the 
public interest. We believe it undermines this democracy which rests on 
the free flow of information. We believe we ought to disapprove of this 
rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at the request of the leadership, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 348 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Smith
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 17) was passed, as follows:

                             S. J. Res. 17

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
     Commission relating to broadcast media ownership (Report and 
     Order FCC 03-127, received by Congress on July 10, 2003), and 
     such rule shall have no force or effect.

  Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________